Regardless, OP isn’t even talking about crimes. They’re saying that big tech companies should be regulated to force them to carry speech they don’t want to, which is clearly a limit on freedom of speech.
Which is simply a straw man argument. The actual legal argument is to allow them to choose between being a common carrier, or accepting liability for the content they publish.
If I understand correctly, you're also misapplying common carriage here. Common carrier laws basically say that if all you do is transport things from A to B, you can't discriminate. That already doesn't describe social networks, which do much more than just deliver your speech: they algorithmically promote it, sell ads against it, etc. But OP is speaking even more broadly than that. One example they've brought up is YouTube demonetizing people, which has nothing to do with transmitting speech.
Well now that just sounds like a no true Scotsman argument. Even among absolutists, the idea that torts or other unrelated crimes should be legalized if they contain an element of speech would be considered fringe and extreme.