I don't think you are taking my point. Yes, you can have a website and your own voice. But if you are being excluded from public platforms - not because you a

I don't think you are taking my point. Yes, you can have a website and your own voice. But if you are being excluded from public platforms - not because you are doing anything illegal, but because a majority or even just the owner doesn't like your opinion - this is a genuine problem. You will live in an echo chamber. These are legal issues and there is legal framework already in existence to prevent illegal acts. Shops cannot refuse service to the public. But an online public platform - eg Twitter - is able to refuse. The ability to refer to a terms of service document that can justify stopping your usage of a public platform when a person has done nothing wrong, should not be legal. That you can be silenced can interpreted as a political act, eg Trump. You might agree with the political slant (but then how would you even hear about alternative views?). I really don't get how you can think or argue that voices are not being censored in the public domain.