The giant caveat to what you are saying is that the nature of the 'broadcast' is not isolated to the individual - it's on a platform. So - for 'web sites' - ye

The giant caveat to what you are saying is that the nature of the 'broadcast' is not isolated to the individual - it's on a platform. So - for 'web sites' - yes. That should apply. And it does: you can make your own 1-to-many site and say almost whatever you want. Twitter is not that, there's much more going on. In the public interest, it may be worthwhile to have maybe some regs around it, and the notion of 'banned for having an opinion' is not entirely unreasonable. That said, most people on Twitter are not banned for that. And of course are the statements: "The Election Was Stolen!" or "The Voting Machines Were Hacked By China" or "Vaccines Were Invented By Big Pharma To Control US" 'opinions'? I would argue that AWS should have very little leeway in terms of who they can host or not - much like 'net neutrality' they should have 'service neutrality'. Same for Email. But for things that are truly social networks, they should have a fair bit of lattitude to set their own policies. Finally you have the issues of distribution. App Store and Google Play have very difficult and problematic barriers to the content on apps. I had an app 'not pass muster' because someone in a bit of content was talking about whether or not a particular male celebrity was 'hot or not'. Ridiculous. So, a final point might be to at minimum require 'objectivity' and 'transparency' to Social Network management, such that people are at least treated consistently according to a clear set of rules. Twitter 'verification' is a giant 'black box' - that's just unfair.