>

The question is actually a bit more complicated.
It may be a first amendment violation if the government coerces private companies to censor speech. However, requests from the government are not automatically assumed to be inherently coercive by themselves.
From the several cases the article lists, a request from the government that a private party censor a third party when the government implicitly or directly threatens retaliation against the private party if they don't do as requested. Simply requesting that a third party be censored is not a first amendment violation on its own.
Typo: freedom of speech is explicitly, not implicitly, a constitutional right >

It is explicitly related to the government censoring speech, particularly political speech. It has no bearing on private restrictions of speech. 
I have no right to go into your church or business and start yelling about anything.   
The issue with social media is determining if they are the new ‘public square’ or news media or and advertising company or a private club… >

We need to foster a culture of greater free speech such that private organizations like social media platforms are not pressured to censor unpopular opinions. >

No, that tramples on the right to free association. If I run a website or business, I do not want to promote any speech from people espousing fascisty views.
We have a right not to associate with others based on their speech.
Free speech just means the government won't punish you directly. The rest of us are not required to listen or allow you to use our platforms to speak. >

I don’t want to trample your rights 🙄 
As I said I want to change the mind of people like you so we have a culture that does not try to stifle speech they disagree with. >

I don't believe that unlimited free speech overriding my will to associate with people whose views I find reprehensible is a virtue.
I don't think the government should jackboot into their homes, but they can GTFO out my business and my life. >

The two arguments can be opposite sides of the same coin, and free association is a tool that both can use to make their opinions known.
You have the right of free association. You have a belief that it's a good thing if certain people aren't given a platform. If you don't want to associate with certain people, you have the right to tell the platform that's how you feel, and to leave if they don't want to operate in a way you like.
Someone like u/terminator3456 has the right of free association. They have a belief that it's a good thing if all/some people are given a platform to speak. They have the right to tell any platform that's how they feel, and to patronize platforms that are more in-line with what they want.
You're both exerting social pressure according to what you believe. >

Free speech is disappearing. I stated my thoughts on transgender people, in that they are their original sex at birth with the added benefit of artificial hormones and some surgery. I mentioned I am fine with whatever they want to identify with. They are entitled to equal rights. I'll even call them ma'am or whatever they prefer. What I won't do is ignore common sense and the reality that a transgendered person born as a male is now magically a female. They're still a male filled with female hormones. 
For that, I was banned in two groups. Probably will be banned for writing this. It's pretty sad how people these days do not have the cognitive ability to hold two opposing thoughts in their brain. Freedom of speech is allowing freedom of speech. It's not hate speech when the science backs  me up. No one is "phobic," because they disagree, especially when science, reality, and common sense validate what I say. Banning someone for this is the opposite of free speech. >

The science doesn't back up your normative claim about the meaning of words like male and female. That is entirely outside the realm of the purpose of science. Nay what science does say is that supporting transgender people's identities improves their quality of life more than anything else.
Your desire to put people in little boxes has nothing to do with science. >

They can be whoever they want. I don't think you understand my premise. People have a set of chromosomes. That's a reality. You can't change that. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming nah nah nah nah won't change that. They can have any identity they desire. What I'm saying is you can't control what I believe between my ears. I don't feel any hate toward them. But the simple reality is they were born with a penis or a vagina. Whether they cut it out and replaced it with something synthetic is another thing altogether. You can put a costume of a cat on a dog but it's still a dog. All I am is addressing is this simple fact, which many seem to be hell-bent on silencing. The silencing aspect is incredibly Insidious. >


Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming nah nah nah nah won't change that. 

Okay? Literally what purpose does it serve for you to care about someone else's genetics? You are just making up a bunch of strawmen here. Do you really think transgender people are unaware that they aren't transitioning their karyotype?

You can put a costume of a cat on a dog but it's still a dog.

"The science supports me" also "[says thing completely irrelevant to gender identities as proof of claim]" 
You clearly don't understand gender identity to a degree that you believe you do. Someone's chromosomes are not their gender identity, the science supports that. Someone's genitals are not their gender identity. The science supports that. Your desire to stuff people into boxes is unproductive at best, and quite obviously hateful. You get pushback because your entire argument here is basically:
"Transgender people can do whatever they want, I don't care. But also I feel the need to say that my worldview only has two boxes and nobody can move out of those boxes. It's very important to me that people know that transgender people don't move out of those boxes in my mind. But otherwise totally fine, do whatever you want. Why are you mad?"
Nobody gives a fuck what little boxes you have to categorize things. At the end of the day it is wholly irrelevant to someone's identity and wellbeing what little categories you have in your mind for people, because they are entirely your constructs. It is nobody's problem but your own. >

Freedom of speech is an explicit, enumerated right in the U.S. under the First Amendment, and it’s a guard against state action, not corporate action.
The issue in the social media age is the blurring of this distinction when the government directs a corporation to censor speech as an end run around the First Amendment. 
I realize reddit is anti-Musk, but the Twitter Files showed that federal agencies (FBI among others) are directing social media corporations to censor accounts and tweets. 
That’s absolutely disgusting and dystopian, imo.
The solution is for Congress (or even the President) to get a wrangle on the federal agencies, but I don’t think the political will exists. >

I lean, pretty left, but I can understand the argument that it is reasonable to want the government to act as a protector against abuse, and not simply be itself unable to abuse.
Like, we want the government to intervene if a business is exploiting its workers. We want the government to intervene if a factory is polluting the environment.
The constitution is just the start of our laws, but doesn't have to be the end of them.
So, if someone is worried that a business is taking away his freedom of expression, I could see the argument that it might be reasonable to ask the government to step in to ensure that there is a valid opportunity for him to fairly express himself. 
The question of course is how much expression is necessary to be considered a valid viable amount, and how do you balance that against, as other posters have mentioned, the freedom of association, where a company that is run by individuals should be able to choose with whom they associate.
If, for example, Twitter tried to use its leverage to shut down a similar platform that Republicans created, I would be okay with the government intervening to ensure that Twitter could not remove the ability of others to speak. But Twitter does not have to enable others to speak on Twitter's own platform.
Does that seem like a reasonable nuance there? >


Does that seem like a reasonable nuance there?

You’ve jumbled labor rights, environmental laws, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and antitrust law. I don’t know what kind of nuance you’re trying to extract.
I’ll stick to speech. I see no argument for the government to direct a corporation to censor speech (in particular, political speech) when the government itself could not take the same action without running afoul of the First Amendment. >


I see no argument for the government to direct a corporation to censor speech (in particular, political speech) when the government itself could not take the same action without running afoul of the First Amendment.

Established precedent is that they can suggest that a private entity do something they wouldn't be, but it's a first amendment violation if they imply that they'll actually do something.
It might be more reasonable if we had a more restrictive standard. Lots of politicians on both side of the aisle are way too comfortable with jawboning whenever a company does something they dislike, and it would be good to reign that in. >

I get it. The particular facts of the Twitter Files would make for an interesting lawsuit since the FBI and Twitter execs had a systematized relationship to censor, in some cases, even random accounts with few followers. 
It reminds me of South Dakota v. Dole and federal funding to states. It’s a fiction to say that even a small amount of strings or action from the feds doesn’t coerce. >

Personally there needs to be protection both ways if we want freedom of speech on platforms like twitter and YouTube. We first need the companies to have immunity when it comes to being sued cause of what xyz said and then someone did or just if someone said something. Once that is established we should be able to have laws that prohibit the censorship of speech unless it is like a direct video of how to make a bomb or something like that. That’s my realistic idea of how to actually achieve free speech on these big platforms
As for my thoughts on them I think they should all be held to that standard and then if they don’t get charged with violating constitutional rights as well as being liable to any civil suit. The amount of censorship on these apps are insane I mean the Democratic Party paid almost 1 million dollars to twitter in removing tweets most of which were politically based. With YouTube it’s also getting to the point of concern with gun YouTubers not being able to show them loading a mag into a gun or else it’s demonetized. Want to learn how to safely clear a gun or clean it too bad that video is demonetized. If we want to preserve the constitution we need to go after these companies cause at this point every day it looks closer and closer to 1984. >


The amount of censorship on these apps are insane I mean the Democratic Party paid almost 1 million dollars to twitter in removing tweets most of which were politically based. 

Got a source for that? Because I've never heard of it. I've read about Republicans pressuring Twitter to remove posts. 

If we want to preserve the constitution we need to go after these companies cause at this point every day it looks closer and closer to 1984.

We have to protect the constitution by unconstitutionally punishing people for exercising their constitutional rights? >

The problem isn't so much big companies as much as the government pushing censorship, FBI clearly has been paying Twitter and most likely meta to censor speech to the tune of millions also using Patriot act to spy on Americans who pose no physical threat. Considering the fact that we have been usurped amd invaded by a outside entity with fascist maoist philosophy of people who have turned up the political division in the country. There should be no legislation against speech it will only further itself into thought crimes. The responsibility lies with the person no  one else. It should be a crime to censor free speech like how they do on here on Reddit and other social platforms. >

Well there are three thoughts to this and I'm not going to filter them:
Free Speech isn't Absolute
You already cannot go to a public school (A government property) and say anything and everything you want. Same with airports, or heck any government building, you will almost certainly get arrested if you say certain things. So private entities having to accommodate all speech even hate speech under the guise of the first amendment is still not an air right argument even if we do ignore the private entity discussion. You get booted from a school for far less than a person gets banned for in Facebook.
The argument around free speech is misleading
It is basically conservatives asking to get preferential treatment because their views should supercede terms of use. The conservative names banned on platforms are people with extreme views who often lead doxing campaigns against other individuals. Twitter and other entities often bend the rules to not ban them.
In the hearings today, Twitter under the previous leadership, admitted that they changed the rules to accommodate president Trump, and he still went on to break the new rules anyway.
Just like when the GOP complained that Google searches were not favorable to them, they aren't interested in a free flow of ideas. Rather they want some level of positive spin or manipulation for themselves. They want conservative ideas promoted despite studies showing lots of search engine algorithms already favor them. They want an equivalent to CNN's both-sides-ism.
Free Speech Absolutists are Hypocrites
Events that come my mind:

Elon banning the Jet Tracking kid and threatening to sue him for compiling already public data.
Elon literally going on banning spree on Twitter of reporters who have reported on Elon in anything but a positive light.
Trump literally blocking anyone who didn't say nice things to him.
McCarthy removing Omar from her committees for anti-Semitism despite promoting MTG (aka. Jewish-space lasers lady).
McCarthy removing Adam Schiff from the intelligence committee for literally grilling the Trump administration about transparency.
Literal conservative lead book burnings.
Don't Say Gay
All conservative blogs and forums such as those in reddit banning anyone who isn't 100% aligned with the flavor of the day party rhetoric. I have gone to r_democrats and criticized Biden and Democrats hard and never been banned.
Conservative media channels like Fox News who rarely feature Liberals. The Five is literally 4 conservatives vs 1 liberal and that is  their usual setups. Mind you other channels do similar or the opposite, but they don't go on to complain about their views being censored simultaneously.
Ditto for most Right Wing Influencers. >


Trump literally blocking anyone who didn't say nice things to him.

Don't forget about Truth Social. Founded because of conservative "concerns" over free speech. Then they added in their terms of service that it's against the rules to speak negatively about them. >

Companies should have the right to curate content on their platform.  However, if that curation is done with influence from, direction by, coordination with, or in service to any government agency or any political party / organization that would be expected to have influence over any government agent or agency then the company is acting as an arm of the government.  At that point their ability to limit speech greatly decreases.  This was the issue with Twitter and honestly, is probably an issue at Reddit as well.  Clearly politics factors into moderation here.  If there is one mod out there who is also active in a political party then, strictly speaking, they have the ability to infringe upon the rights of users by acting as an agent of a party with influence over / influence by the government.