It seems to me that the right to exclude certain types of speech from your privately owned platform is in itself a form of expression, and important to preserve

It seems to me that the right to exclude certain types of speech from your privately owned platform is in itself a form of expression, and important to preserve. Where we get into trouble is when one entity obtains monopoly or near-monopoly control over a means of spreading information, and thus gains the power to tell everyone what they can and can't know. And Google is not that far off. They have a monopoly in at least one market and the EU has already found them guilty of anti-competitive practices. The US government has not brought an anti-trust case against Google, and you could argue it's failing to do its job--the ties between Google and the US government run disturbingly deep, with Google allegedly serving as an arm of US foreign policy in many ways: https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ Either way, the most important point is simply that monopolies are dangerous. And the best solution is to weaken them, whether through regulatory action, consumers voting with their feet, or other companies introducing competition. I think the most interesting project in this space is Searx, which allows me to aggregate results from Google and other search engines, and flip a switch to turn each engine on or off. Searx is a great step in the direction of breaking Google's monopoly and thus hindering its ability to severely limit free speech. https://github.com/asciimoo/searx https://github.com/asciimoo/searx