>

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?
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.