"Supposed to be" according to whom? It's fine that the author wants to run a social media company like an email service, and of course he's free to do that. But

"Supposed to be" according to whom? It's fine that the author wants to run a social media company like an email service, and of course he's free to do that. But none of the major social media sites share that business model. Their revenue is based on engagement, and that model is deeply and inextricably entangled with their content and how it is pushed out to users. Are social media sites qualified to be arbiters of truth? Of course not, that's not their business model. But they're well within their rights to decide what content gets exposed to who on their service, and they've done that from the very beginning. People who are upset at being "deplatformed" are in the exact same position as SEO optimizers whose business gets gouged when Google changes their search algorithm. If you want to make Facebook some kind of common carrier, you're going to have to outlaw all of its engagement-optimizing AI and targeted marketing, the very core of its business model. When you get on a platform to take advantage of exactly those tools, you can't complain when they change the rules on you---you knew the score when you signed up, you can save the crocodile tears.