It would be censorship to _force_ a company to say something they didn't want to say. That is clearly taking away their rights to free speech.

Are you being purposefully obtuse, or do you actually believe that HN wrote your comment?

I don't think you understand. Read it again. But sigh. I could explain it again.

Disallowing companies from banning users would be forcing those companies to carry content they disagree with, thereby removing their right to free speech.

Your stance is effectively that social media sites are publishers instead of platforms. This is my opinion as well, but it carries with it liability. Unfortunately, they currently are immune to such liability while being able to choose who can say what.

If they want the protections the phone company gets, they need to act more like the phone company.

It's not really. You can disagree with something but still not be responsible for it and carry it on your properties. You can also disagree with it and not carry it.

I can even prove it.

That's how it works. Right. Now.

Control. Trump is not controlled by Twitter. He is controlled by the government just like the rest of the US. A school, they control the children, and they have a limited control over the child's free speech. Your job, possibly a private institution, has control over you. They can censor you with the power they have.

We need the 1A because we don't get to choose our government, we do get to choose our internet messaging platforms and they choose to work with us.