> that's a different matter I didn't intend to go into I don't think you can avoid it though. What if I personally choose not to associate with people I view

> that's a different matter I didn't intend to go into I don't think you can avoid it though. What if I personally choose not to associate with people I view as activists? Surely that's my right? What if I start a small business that's very up front about refusing clients who are activists? What if Facebook were to ban the accounts of known activists? Who gets to set the criteria that determine if a topic or group is protected, what constitutes an insult, etc? Who do these rules apply to - only the largest of businesses or even to individuals? How do you balance such rules against the freedom to choose not to associate with someone? How do you avoid situations in which such rules would constitute a form of forced speech? If you tell Facebook (using your example) that they have to allow speech on their own platform that they don't agree with, then you had better have a very clear, comprehensive, and unambiguous set of legal tests to apply because you're opening an absolutely enormous can of worms. Worse, Facebook is the _easy_ case because you can construct a reasonably convincing argument that the large public cloud providers have intentionally made themselves a sort of public commons (albeit a strange privately owned and operated one). As you look at progressively smaller businesses that serve fewer customers and have more competition, such an argument begins to break down. I can see the reasoning that a forum (ex Reddit) or web host (ex Cloudflare) is a platform provider and should be required to be neutral, similar to the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions. But I can also see legitimate concerns arising if (for example) YouTube was forced to host videos that they felt tarnished their brand or (for example) Reddit had been legally prevented from banning /r/watchpeopledie.