> Why should a social media provider, who is ultimately a dumb conduit for the public town square like any other telecom service, be able to do so? I think you

> Why should a social media provider, who is ultimately a dumb conduit for the public town square like any other telecom service, be able to do so? I think you're begging the question here. It's not clear they're conduits - they're arguably at one end of the conduit. They arguably abut the town square (the internet at large), but that's not the same as being the town square. > Why not just treat political opinion as a protected trait as well? Lots of reasons. If you think about it for a minute or two, you can probably think of several. > They are effectively governments when it comes to their ability to shut down speech You mean "their ability to shut down speech on their own property, and nowhere else", which is different. So, yes, they're effectively governments on their own turf, much like the owner of a popular bar. Even if the bar is the the de-facto "town square" of some isolated hamlet where the townsfolk routinely gather to discuss the issues of the day.