Yes, and this was problem exists to this day in prevailing cable and newspapers. During the time they were prevalent, unpopular events and speech were not spoken on the biggest networks (still not spoken about) and significant silenced perspectives had to make do with smaller platforms, poorer cable times, smaller venues, and self-publishing newspapers assuming they could fund a printing press. There was not a push to force those networks to host these voices.

Yes, it’s an existing problem. I don’t understand why this is a new problem and am confused why this is unacceptable on the level that is new.

It's not new, but I do believe back in the day there was such a thing as public-access television, and anyone could in fact start their own newspaper without being somehow banned from taking cash payments.

They are still not banned from taking cash payments. They are banned from using a specific cash-taking service. It is still possible to set up a PO box to mail cheques to. Public-access television did not mean that anyone can have a show(or was entitled to being shown), either, iirc. They could still start their own newspaper, and the indie/local newspaper cycle is still being perpetuated in artsy or politically leftist circles.

>They are still not banned from taking cash payments. They are banned from using a specific cash-taking service. It is still possible to set up a PO box to mail cheques to.

That's a de facto ban and you know it. There have been zero cases in which an internet business has kept itself above-water via asking for checks to be sent to a post-office box.

Instead, there should just be a post-office payment processor, operating over the network like all the others, and legally required to serve any customer.