You read my post and THAT is what you took from it? Oh, wow... I'm not even remotely defending censorship, I think it's horrible. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to do so. It does mean I don't think they should.

You might want to read my whole post, maybe the whole thread.

They should stop having that right, in my humble opinion.

We regulate companies, trying to prevent them from doing things that we deem harmful to people or the society as a whole.

I've seen a ton of people on here (not you; in general) argue that e.g. that Christian homophobe baker has to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, or that the Hobby Lobby company has to provide access to contraceptives under ACA. So why can't we have legislation and regulations to force "social" networks (of a certain size, maybe) to host content that their operators don't like but is still lawful and legal?

If you take away their right to decide what to host, they'll just take away their servers from your jurisdiction.

Or they'll always limit their userbase to be below the regulated size. If we're lucky they might opt for federation like email, so that it doesn't break up the ability to reach others easily on other servers.

Decentralized hosting is the best solution.

The existing right to refuse service is currently only limited by very few laws, like discrimination law and some utility regulations. Taking away the right to refuse service will not work well at all

I agree. I only say they have that right because they do, currently, have that right. I also make it a point to stress that I only suggest this for lawful content. Nobody should have to host illegal things.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but this situation is not acceptable to me.