It takes a nation to protect the nation
They are arguing that being private companies they can decide who is on their site or not. However if they ban you for having black skin it is wrong and illegal, if they ban you just for being a muslim it is wrong and illegal. Likewise it has to be wrong and illegal to ban someone for having a political opinion as long as they do not break the law by directly inciting people to kill each other. DIRECTLY inciting violence, It is not enough to say that your political views cause hatred or could cause someone to carry out a violent attack. That being the case anyone writing about communism or islam would have to be banned as the teachings can incite followers to violence.
What they are saying is that you are being banned because your political views conflict with theirs.
I don't buy the "libertarian free market" type excuse that these are private companies - this is capitalism being used against the indigenous people rather than in their service, though the capitalists are quite willing to have banksters bailouts and operate their fiat currency scams at taxpayer expense, most people regard social media as a public utility and as necessary for political and social debate, and governments should legislate accordingly, though the evil cabal's lobby groups have power over the governments, so the people will have to invent their own :bulletproof" platforms and means of communication.
Some people are asking "Where is Trump?", meaning that if he doesn't tackle the censorship of the right and his supporters, he has no hope of winning in 2020.
There is even a legal solution to this problem as I understand it. The social media companies have argued that they are not communications companies (or national utilities), so do not need regulation by the state. Because everyone needs electricity and a phone line, those companies are strictly state regulated. But the social media companies, have clearly grown into comms companies, so they should not be allowed to discriminate against their customers, and should be under national regulation.
These days everyone needs an internet connection Alan, almost as much as they need electricity and have needed radio and television. As you point out there are physical things that cannot be denied to people. Then there is freedom and content on the internet, governments decide how much we get of those. The big tech companies have become political and moral, deciding what is right and what is wrong/ allowed, not allowed. A responsible government would put them in their place and tell them what is to be allowed and what is not. We can rightly describe these tech companies to be totalitarian.
The big tech companies supply a commodity just like an automobile manufacturer. The car manufacturer mostly just wants to sell cars and make money, it would be difficult for him to control who got to own a car and he has no need to do that.
One solution might be for the government to divide the tech companies into smaller units with differing owners. They have regulations against monopolies don't they? Surely the situation here is that these tech companies have a monopoly.
China would never have allowed this because it wants the state to have a monopoly on right and wrong.
Mark Steyn has been making that argument for a while. He argues that Standard Oil was broken up using Anti-Trust laws 100 years ago (in 1911), and that was a far smaller and less invasive operation than Google and Facebook, so there is no excuse for not breaking up Google and Facebook right now.
Someone has to get the message to Trump- break up these giant tech companies.
Trump says he will "look into it" - just as he looks into stopping immigration, building the wall, and ending neo-con wars in the middle east....
I was very happy every time the republicans blocked Obama's lunacy. The power of the President is not absolute, but I do believe that Trump is sincere and is trying to get that wall built. Some immigration is inevitable what Trump is fighting is mass-immigration with a border and laws full of holes. Then half the American population and politicians oppose him.
Here there is a family being sent back to Afghanistan. They did not meet the refugee status requirements. All legal. sensible and above board. But the entire press is presenting it as a crime against humanity and people are screaming and demonstrating in order to stop the perfectly reasonable deportation. You see this happening in America too with sanctuary cities and states and fanatics screaming. Ignoring reality and the law, laws made to protect them.
It is the down side of Democracy.