[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Individual authors have no constitutional right to have their views published on platforms privately owned by others, so there is no right they have which could trump the rights of platforms. In order for there to be a contest of rights here, a constitutional amendment would be needed to grant the right to have one's views promulgated on private platforms.

[kanox]

Large platforms (for example >10m users) should be forced by law to publish everything which is not otherwise illegal.

[_dibly]

What if a large platform has strict posting rights to cultivate a specific community standard that has nothing to do with the law? If my power-washing forum gets to over 10m users I'm now legally obligated to publish everything that doesn't violate US law, regardless of my site's content moderation policy?

What about large platforms based in other countries with a strong user base in the US, or vice versa? Do you force tech companies based internationally to comply with US law for content moderation purposes globally, or just for US residents? If not, what's to stop Facebook from moving their offices to Canada and continuing their business model as-is?

I fail to see how this is an even remotely reasonable assertion.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Sure, it's fine to have that belief. Just, to make it work in a world where the Citizens United precedent exists, you really need a constitutional amendment. Or a supreme court willing to make a really creative interpretation of the constitution and precedent landscape. This isn't a normative statement about what ought and ought not to be. It's just an observation of what is.