They are alleging that the government recommended censorship technology to private companies, which legally has no distinction from the government "inducing" p

They are alleging that the government recommended censorship technology to private companies, which legally has no distinction from the government "inducing" private companies to use censorship technology, and therefore they are claiming that the government is suppressing free speech and they don't have the right to do that. I'm not terribly convinced that sort of transitive logic means the government abrogated free speech rights. The government recommends private companies do all kinds of things without being mandatory or regulated.