> The argument you are arguing with is predicated now on what free-speech is it isn’t but on situating one side as the victim of free speech crimes.

No, not really. I've pointed out the mistake of conflating the right to free speech, as in the governments not being allowed to stop people from expressing their ideas and opinions without fear of retaliation, with the privilege of using (and abusing) someone else's services or infrastructure to advance your political ideals.

Convenience and rights are not the same thing, and not being able to benefit from the services provided by someone else does not mean your right to free speech is infringed upon.

To put it differently, just because you can say whatever you want that doesn't give you the right to grab someone else's megaphone to do it.

When it comes to platforms, meaning something with a network effect and limited equivalent substitutes, the difference between a government and a private service is academic at best. The reality is both can have lots of power and influence and the impact of their limits on civil liberties such as the freedom of speech are similar. Your interpretation of that freedom seems to stop at what the first amendment provides. But freedom of speech is a much more fundamental concept.

Clarifying…we agree

You are trying to explain this point to someone who’s entire belief structure relies on not understanding it.

You are right, damn right, but I’ve learned it’s not worth your time.

>"who’s entire belief structure relies on not understanding it."

That's rather pompous, how do you know your interpretation / understanding is objectively correct and theirs is objectively wrong? Why is your personal understanding the correct one that other people are unable to grasp?