> Ugh, my main point is that the concept of "free speech" in the US is not relevant at all to the question of whether a private entity can remove you from their platform for saying something they don't like.

and i'm saying that you appear to treat social media and digital identity as some superfluous luxury that can be revoked without consequence from an individual as punishment (or for more dubious reasons), much like how republicans view health care and social welfare: with the notable exception of the US and one or two others, every country recognizes that private corporations must provide health care (or the means to it - i'm talking about the equipment, education, etc. being provided largely by non-governmental institutions), and citizens must be allowed to access to it regardless of who they are and what they've said, or even done.

yes, you are correct that the constitution does not prevent private corporations from removing content that they do not like, that is the point here. there is no question over the legality of such removals, and i don't think anyone here has tried to raise one.

i'm not trying to smuggle constitutional/government mandate, i'm explicitly trying to discuss the notion of whether or not it should exist.