Again you are focused on the legal argument that no one is making Yes they have the legal ability to moderate content under current law. However that does not

Again you are focused on the legal argument that no one is making Yes they have the legal ability to moderate content under current law. However that does not mean they are beyond criticism, just because they can do something does not mean the SHOULD do something, and if they do everyone has the equal right to voice their displeasure with said action >>Does that not count as freedom of expression? No I do not believe that moderation is "speech" that is dangerously close to the "silence is racist" mantra we are hearing in the wider society. Silence / lack of moderation is not speech, nor is it "endorsement" or anything else Simliarly defense of the concept of free expression is not an endorsement of the speech being defended. Society it seems have lost the axiom of "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it" Today you and many others take the approach of "I disagree with what you say so I will pressure platforms to prevent you from saying it" That is the danger in society, because before too long either you (and people that think like you) or the platforms will push for government limit speech.. As I said in another comment, the Law is simply a reflection of the society, it just takes the law awhile to catch up. There are still enough of us that do respect free expression to hold off legal changes, but we diminish in numbers every year which to you I am sure is a good thing. The problem is we are playing chess looking 5 moves ahead and seeing the logical conclusion, where cancel culture people (like yourself) are playing checkers and only looking 1 move ahead I want to pressure the platforms to uphold free expression as an ideal. you want to destroy that.