or limiting speech. Private enterprise has all the right in the world not to publish what it does not agree with or want to publish.

Perhaps frame it this way. Most people want the USA to be the best it can be. People generally agree that the free exchange and debate of ideas/policies is beneficial to a functioning democratic republic. Many would agree that underrepresented peoples or unpopular ideas are needed in the public square. If these are true, is it an ultimate good or bad for our society for, say Twitter, who has every right to publish whatever they want on their platform, to suppress the writings / ban lots of people with abhorrent, false or even dangerous ideas or political views? What about ideas Twitter just disagrees with? Is it better to remove and try to hide these ideas, get them totally out of the main steam or to debate, discuss, refine or refute them in the main steam? Should different ideas get different treatment? Is advocating violent revolution the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater? How do we want these things decided?

If you want to debate, ask something like that, let’s get a starting place we can agree with and then work from there to discuss specifics.