You have no intrinsic right to a mobile telephone, so we do live in this world.

If it made business sense for them to do this, they would.

Call in a few threats to local businesses or SWAT someone and see how long it takes for your phone to get disabled.

Do you have evidence of that ever happening? I've never read that in a swatting story.

Twitter disabling the NY Post doesn't make 'business sense' under any conventional definition of business, unless you consider election manipulation for the benefit of one political party to have near unlimited business upside.

What we're dealing with here is not ordinary abuse control of the sort that isn't controversial, and it's a false equivalence to connect the two. It's outright suppression of doing anything that might harm the political left.

See also: net neutrality

Net neutrality is not applicable outside the network layers.

To that point, a small number of companies entirely dominate all social media at this point:

Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Pinterest, Snapchat, Tiktok.

Collectively they form an extreme oligopoly position, something quite comparable to the telecom oligopoly. They should be held to a different standard accordingly, if they want to retain such power in our society. If only a few of them simultaneously collude to censor, it has what can only be considered something akin to direct government censorship in the impact it has: you are without voice while everyone else is holding a bullhorn.

In this day and age, being denied access to social media is probably even more socially & culturally punishing than having your phone number turned off. It's more akin to not allowing people to leave their homes and enter public spaces, not allowing them to ever protest, not allowing them to ever voice their opinions in a public square.

It's tautological to say that the sites people use ate the sites people use. Putting TikTok on your list shows the emptiness of the argument. When a new site offers something the others don't, people migrate.