[mrmckizzle]

I would say yes... but these companies have Section 230 protection. At what point can the public have a say in their business? Specifically when these protections were originally given to protect companies from lawsuits due to what people were posting on their platforms?

[polishTar]

Corporations also have the first amendment right to include or exclude whatever they want on their own websites.

Section 230 just stops people from suing services for the speech of their users, ie you can't sue twitter for anything donald trump tweets even if it's illegal/defamatory/etc.

If section 230 didn't exist, then services would become liable for every action their users take on their platforms. I don't understand why people think this would reduce censorship, it'd be the exact opposite. If section 230 wasn't a thing, services would mitigate legal risk by censoring to an unprecedented degree.

[mrmckizzle]

If 230 didn't exist we would have had a different medium for a public commons. These companies have become the commons and are now acting as a publisher in order to influence public debate in a direction they deem fit. Perhaps a solution to S230 is to add a clause that specifically states that the 1st amendment has to be upheld if they wish to be protected?