I happen to agree with that point of view, so just to elaborate from my perspective to head off a likely point of confusion, government censorship is not inhere

I happen to agree with that point of view, so just to elaborate from my perspective to head off a likely point of confusion, government censorship is not inherently bad. There are clearly cases where society in the US has determined, and I agree, that it is in the interest of society as a whole to sacrifice some of our freedom as the harms outweigh the benefits such as for speech that advocates "imminent lawless action". Even in the current case, although I personally disagree that censorship is the right answer, if we as a society lucidly determine that the societal harm outweighs our freedom then I will stand by that outcome even though I would hope it would be overturned in the future via future legal action. What I find truly concerning about the present circumstances is that there are attempts to frame it is something other than government censorship and should thus undergo less or even no scrutiny. And on the other side that these organizations should be compelled to carry speech as if that were "protecting freedom" rather than just another form of government abridgement of speech and thus should undergo less or even no scrutiny. In my opinion, it is our duty as a society to not be wishy-washy about this and recognize that any attempts by the government to influence speech, either directly or indirectly, are government censorship and we must tackle this head on and come to decision whether we think the harm to society is worse than the sacrifice of our freedoms.