That libertarian/conservative talking point is often misstated, which intentionally or not becomes a red herring. Their claim isn't (or shouldn't be) that Yout

That libertarian/conservative talking point is often misstated, which intentionally or not becomes a red herring. Their claim isn't (or shouldn't be) that Youtube or Facebook or Twitter, in taking actions like these, aren't engaging in censorship. Their claim is that it's legal and not a violation of free speech (1A in the US), i.e. it's not government censorship, because that only applies when government is taking the actions. There are several problems with this, outlined in Clarence Thomas's recent concurring opinion in Biden v. Knight. Dominant communications platforms are essentially part of the public square, and two well-established legal principles could come into play to restrict their actions: public accommodations and common carriers. There's the additional problem that government is influencing how social media companies police content, not only indirectly through fear of retribution, but even directly. One instance that recently got media attention: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/07/15/psaki_were_flagging_problematic_posts_for_facebook_that_spread_disinformation.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/07/15/psaki_wer...