[piaste]

> the notion that the government should be allowed to force at gunpoint a private entity to amplify speech that such entity disagrees with doesn't strike me as particularly democratic.

"Private entity" is a very broad category that encompasses everything from individual citizens/entrepreneurs to trillion-dollar multinational corporations with armies of shareholders, lobbyists, and lawyers.

I think there are plenty of scenarios where the law should discriminate between the latter and the former, and this is one of them.

[qsort]

> I think there are plenty of scenarios where the law should discriminate between the latter and the former,

I don't see why this is the case. Private entities are made of people. If Twitter vehemently disagrees with something, I don't see any reason why the government should force them to go against their wishes.

> very broad category that encompasses everything

This is exactly the problem. While there is an argument that Twitter was wrong in the specific case, the implications of having the government force Twitter to say/amplify things they don't believe are __chilling__. Restricting speech is bad enough, but often understandable, this is frankly several steps beyond what I'm comfortable with.