If you leave the responsibility of Free Speech to the Free Market then you end up having freedom of press only for the people who own one.

The hard part is getting that corp to own anything of value, since it starts with just the money you put in. But this is still a viable path to wealth for people with time horizons measured in years rather than days. (And all the people who want immediate gratification provides a fairly large market to trade with.)

That's how things have traditionally been in the US, is it not? As far as I know there was never any law that would force me to allow someone else to use my (literal) printing press.

The exception is the FCC fairness doctrine, but the basis for that was that the "printing press" (RF allocations) is actually a common good, and was only granted to private interests in exchange for certain concessions.

Look at Visa going after porn and private sex work.

This entire culture of trying to control what others can say via deplatformization is neoliberal fascism.

Bad things get said. But free speech protects all of us from tyranny, and we have to defend it. Because they'll come after you and your ideas next.

Americans have thick skin, or at least most of us do. It's a consequence of our liberty, and it's a defining trait of our system.