[josephcsible]

> Of course I assume this will only apply to narrow issues such as right wingers being deplatformed.

This argument goes both ways. Don't most people who think Big Tech should be allowed to keep censoring people because of the First Amendment, also think that the First Amendment shouldn't apply to corporations when it comes to Citizens United?

[api]

Perhaps but it's a bit more complicated. Citizens United is more about money than speech per se. You can't prevent members of corporations from speaking whatever they want as they are people, but corporations acting as corporations can bankroll political campaigns and push propaganda in ways very few individuals can afford.

It gets even worse when you consider that many corporations are international entities whose interests may not be aligned at all with those of US voters. It's a bit like letting people overseas come into the US and contribute to campaigns and run political ads without limit. In fact it more or less allows this since it's trivial for a foreign individual (or state actor) to use a corporation as a front.

Personally I think Citizens United is a threat to national security. If we were still in the Cold War you'd have the USSR contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to PACs and DC think tanks after laundering it through byzantine financial relationships with US front companies.

I'm just referring to the hypocrisy of right wingers suddenly discovering the issues with monopolies (and narrow oligopolies) when it affects them. You'd be hearing nothing about big tech from the right if they hadn't deplatformed people on the right.