Doesn't the "terrific" 1st amendment (not sure in which sense you're using the word) cut against the type of regulations that the gp advocates for? To the exte

Doesn't the "terrific" 1st amendment (not sure in which sense you're using the word) cut against the type of regulations that the gp advocates for? To the extent that banning pro-Tibet messages is expressive editorial conduct, the government's banning of such companies for engaging in such conduct would violate the 1st amendment protections against viewpoint discrimination. Put another way, by preventing the government from regulating private companies in such a fashion, the 1st amendment can actually weaken free speech (though I would argue that the actual problem is fact that the big tech companies are so dominant that few viable alternative venues, with different editorial practices, exist). The result is that when the government tries to reform the editorial practices of the tech companies, it has to do so through awkward means (like saying that they are not enforcing their own rules or threatening to strip them of their protection against libel and other causes of action). Anyway I'm pretty sure that if they condition civil liability protection on their following editorial "best practices", like what current bipartisan bills to reform section 230 do, the courts will not play along.