I see the point you're making. If we deconstruct the whole matter and look at it from an existential point of view, humans are incredibly constrained in their freedoms by the nature of our existence. In a fundamental way, our language and culture predetermines what we can think and how we think, and our environment is probably a bigger impediment to freedom of speech and thought than anything else.

But from a policy perspective on the ground, I think the ideal of freedom of speech should eclipse the concerns of private platforms wherever possible. But this is not to say we should not police the boundaries of free speech. In fact, if we had a more strict enforcement policy about unprotected speech like direct threats (such as L. Lin Wood's declaration that people should execute Mike Pence by firing squad [0]), we might not need these platform interventions at all.

[0]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secret-service-says-...

Sure - but we’re not in that policy place with regards to social media, and they will fight any attempt to exert that kind of requirement.

Agreed — I'm not trying to say I know the answers. However, I do believe there's a role that social media companies have played in this polarization that needs to be addressed. Tristan Harris (of The Social Dilemma fame) makes very good points in this regard. Many of the political problems we have are thanks to to a distorted landscape of information distribution centered around advertising and platform addictiveness.

Maybe we need a "C-SPAN/NPR of social media".

I agree that they are under no obligation to host speech they don't agree with.

Let's say if these companies are monopolies. Should they still hold the same power?

Isn’t the general solution there to bust the monopoly?

The main exception is utilities which generally operate as natural monopolies. They should be (and generally are — this is isn’t a new idea) regulated to only be allowed to deny service for limited, specific reasons. There’s room for improvement here. ISPs are relatively new to being treated as utilities and many ordinary regulations that should be in-place are missing.

Imagine a TV news network with audience of 1 billion people which will give free airtime to one political party only, especially during the election cycle. How big of an advantage this is and how much is this kind of reach worth? Aren't there campaign laws about this kind of thing?

Are you saying this speculatively or because you understand that your hypothetical is already the functional end of our media landscape?

What? Are you proposing we ban Fox News? :)

First, election cycle is over; second, they are not banning one political party.