You’re missing the difference between public and private actions. If Netflix decides not to carry a particular film, that’s entirely up to them and their customers and competitors are free to make other decisions. If the government requires something, as in this case, that’s the kind of thing free speech advocates worry about because it has the full weight of the state behind it.

How does it not apply to Netflix? Just because they have the right to censor stuff, doesn't mean that you have to agree with any particular instance of their censorship, does it?

I am not defending Netflix. I think Silicon Valley companies pushing a political agenda using their platforms is reprehensible, particularly given the high level of concentration. However I merely point the contradiction between the New York Times cheering for the de-platforming movement and then complaining about Netflix in name of Free Speech.

"Free speech" as a value is different from free speech protections from government interference. Maybe the former needs a new name...

Free speech the value is about the government. Free speech is always about the government.

It's true that some people think this. Other people think the 1st Amendment exists for a reason less simplistic than "a government shouldn't censor people," something to do with a healthy human society: https://theintercept.com/2014/08/21/twitter-facebook-executi...

This is not to argue that the 1st Amendment should compel anything beyond protection from government censorship, but that the value it exists to promote applies to wider situations

Is it? Do you have sources to back that up? In principle it seems like it's a concept that could apply equally to freedom from retribution from one's family/local community/internet service provider.