The previous non-existence of certain technology isn't enough on its own to make this determination. It's also necessary to look at the overall state of a socie

The previous non-existence of certain technology isn't enough on its own to make this determination. It's also necessary to look at the overall state of a society to tease out the true consequences of these kinds of issues. I think a consequentialist lens is helpful here. If your local municipality started preventing people who had said objectionable things from crossing into the town via a public road, it would not follow that this is just fine because at one time, roads didn't exist. If you take a step back, and look at it as an issue of freedom of association and/or free speech, things get a lot murkier. If an entire society morphs itself to use those private entities for public discourse, at some point it almost doesn't matter that the entity is private, if the ultimate outcome is a serious violation of one's rights to associate/speak. This is at odds with the expectations a private company rightly has about its ability to do business with whom they please, and this is why the issue is so contentious. Neither side of this issue stands on solid ground.