[_dibly]

The platform is private, so the 'individual author' isn't having their free speech restricted by being restricted from a single private platform. If someone gets banned from Twitter for posting statements inciting violence, there's nothing stopping that person from going to other outlets like Reddit or Facebook, or even starting their own site/newsletter. But if a private company were legally incapable of removing content that they determined was unacceptable on their platform, that would be totally okay with you?

[wolco2]

A platform is neutral by nature or it's not a platform.

Like a standard can be used by all.

Or a Foss project can be used by all.

[RuggedPineapple]

This isn't true in the slightest. Your 'neutrality' or whatever isn't important at all. Every single paper and pamphlet the people writing the first amendment were familiar with was deeply, intrinsically partisan. Those 17th century platforms still expressly retained the right to decide who featured inside their pages.

[_dibly]

Neither of those things are owned and moderated by a private company, and private companies definitely don't orient their product on the basis of neutrality.