[notacoward]

> It is your house, your rules.

Spot on. The first amendment prohibits government from limiting speech. It does not require private parties to allow arbitrary speech, let alone to broadcast it. One could argue that social media should be regulated as public utilities, subject to rules (but still not first amendment) about what speech must or must not be allowed. I happen to disagree, but even if I agreed it hasn't happened yet and even if it happened it would still be commerce clause rather than first amendment.

> Right wingers tend to conveniently bend the borderline between public and private whenever it benefits them.

So much this. Conservatives and libertarians constantly complain about environmental or financial regulation, but when it comes to "too big to fail" bailouts or stealing taxpayer money to provide free infrastructure (of all kinds) for big business they're mostly silent. Sure, there are always a few who speak up, but "not all libertarians" in economics is a lot like "not all men" in gender relations. It's an excuse, a mere fig leaf of concern that doesn't really conceal a generally neo-feudalist agenda.

P.S. I see some of the snowflakes are taking advantage of the "censorship" options here on HN to downvote, thus essentially proving my point.