> That isn't elitism or censorship. It's enforcing their ToS, which as a private business, they have every right to do. I also think you're confused about what an 'elite' actually is. Spoonfed, entitled, whining, bitching opportunists like Trump fit that bill. And don't even pretend this isn't the side you're on.

Emotionally charged drivel. I didn't vote for either Biden or Trump, and definitely didn't support either. They are both agents of the 'elites'. Trump wouldn't have won the Republican primary if he wasn't part of the problem. Further, I tried to warn Trumps supporters he was planning a Night of the Long Knives, to rid his party of there extremist brown shirts (aka the January 6th insurrection).

The private business argument is weak as you're really pointing to the freedom that businesses employ. Quite obviously censorship runs contrary to the idea of freedom and the spirit of the law. Private industry does not have an inherent right to censorship, it is only legal currently because social media is a relatively new form of communication. This censorship has clearly been disruptive and since social media is essentially serving the role of a telecommunications provider those laws surrounding their freedoms are likely to change. You have to be careful because just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Social media companies can also read your private messages and share your private photos but that wouldn't make it right.

>Private industry does not have an inherent right to censorship

Facebook and Twitter both enjoy the rights bestowed upon them by the First Amendment to remove content as they see fit. Requiring Facebook and Twitter to host content that they don't want would violate their First Amendment rights.

The first amendment has nothing to do with that. The first amendment protects the individual and the press from government censorship. As I said, the spirit of the law is to protect from censorship. Unfortunately social media companies are abusing their power.

Go read up on Citizens United v FEC.

That is a red herring and has nothing to do with what I said. It is also a highly controversial decision.

>has nothing to do with what I said

Again, read up on it, because they clearly state that the First Amendment extends to corporations as well, since the First Amendment is is about abridging freedom of speech, not about individual citizens.