The whole point of his post is that ALL governments are founded on this idea. You would not have a need for government in the first place if it wasn't for undes

The whole point of his post is that ALL governments are founded on this idea. You would not have a need for government in the first place if it wasn't for undesirable people doing undesirable things. In the United States, we founded our government on the principle that governments shouldn't get involved with the concept of free speech. This doesn't mean all speech is free. We put certain limits on when free speech takes effect, and this is actually a perfect example of how the law must take imprecise definitions into consideration. [Insert the usual, "free speech isn't really what you think it is" that I'm sure the internet has seen millions of times over]. The poster's point was that commercial platforms must address the same issue of undesirables. People realized that allowing the government to prohibit certain forms of speech has the negative externality that governments also gain the power to regulate all speech. On the other hand, corporations can never feasibly have that much power. They can only limit speech on their own platform. There's always another place to speak freely if you wish. This is why I find the "free speech" argument for not regulating internet comments intractable. It assumes that since we don't want governments regulating all speech, we don't want corporations regulating speech on their platform. But that simply doesn't make sense for idealogical reasons, which I believe was the top-level poster's point.