It seems like you are just repeating the same specious point that OP was refuting.

Right now, it feels like companies like Google are mostly silencing hate speech, violent extremists, and pornography, but there is no guarantee that their censorship will remain that way in the future. In a not-so-hypothetical future where a single private company has taken almost whole control over online media and starts imposing heavy censorship over non-offensive speech, are we going to continue saying "it's a private company, and if you don't like it, you can just share your opinions on this platform that nobody reads"?

Presumably if they blocked speech that most people actually wanted to see, they'd leave to one of the billion other messaging tools. You can still say anything you want over email.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm going to do. Your opinion has no right to exist on any platform. Don't like it? You can move off of it. Bring other people to a platform that goes by rules you like. I don't use Gab, I am not interested in it, but it exists and has rules you may prefer if this hypothetical situation were to occur.

I like diverse viewpoints being allowed. It is unacceptable, however, to be so entitled as to try to force companies not to censor whatever they feel like.

Would you be similarly comfortable with your cell provider censoring your calls and/or texts? After all, it's unacceptable to force them not to censor whatever they feel like.

Is it equally unacceptable to be entitled to try to force companies to hire/fire who they don't want?

What about forcing companies to offer housing to people they do or don't like?

And what about offering loans? Should companies be forced to offer loans to people, even if they don't want to?

We're talking about protected classes here, and I don't think it's equally unacceptable. On a fundamental level, inherent characteristics (race) are very different from ideas (speech). So I think you can be in favor of anti-discrimination on basis of who you are, while also being against beliefs becoming a protected class.

Though, just so you know where I'm coming from, in my ideal world it would be strong social and business pressures that enforced the idea of protected classes, not regulation. I'd support any competitor which was more ethical, but complex issue.

The heritability of certain political preferences are higher than the heritability of homosexuality (a protected class).

I used to think like you do, but what changed my mind was that I tried to consider whether a hands-off approach will maximize total freedom.

If, by regulating the way people do business, we can increase total freedom in the world, I think that it's a worthwhile exchange. The way we do business is already regulated, and is one of the powers that we explicitly grant the government in the constitution.

The way I see it, forcing social platforms to accept free speech is really just a commercial regulation, and not a speech regulation. After all, we all understand that this post doesn't reflect the opinions of YC, and thus forcing YC to accept this post doesn't restrict anyone's freedom of speech.

The flaw in this logic is that in today's online world if you want to participate in the relevant discourse, where everyone else is participating, it's Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/etc...

This is like saying if you don't like the debate happening in your city hall or town square, go to the small gathering in the woods to have your conversations.. where no one will hear you, and what you say will have no impact.

I know this the analogy is flawed because there is no "public space" on the Internet.. The places we have chosen to hold our public discourse online are all privately owned..

It's a challenging problem and "go somewhere else" is not a viable solution because it marginalizes and suppresses unpopular opinions or minority groups..