Sure, but in other ways, they are not.
They do not, for example, break the government's monopoly on force; tech companies generally cannot compel you to pay taxes or imprison you. If you make them unhappy, mostly the worst thing they can do is ignore you -- and unlike a government, they cannot force others to ignore you, and they cannot much affect your life outside of their own transactions with you.
The centralization of multiple forms of power is more concerning than the mere existence of power in separate spheres. You say "maybe they should?" but collaboration between the organization that controls force and the organizations that control speech seems like an opportunity for much more substantial oppression.
A private company is not required to publish your rants on the current state of underground mole peoples' infiltration of the highest offices of the world's governments. If you somehow get it onto the platform, and they are made aware of it, they can unpublished it.
Just like the NYT is not required to post every opinion piece that is submitted to them.
Twitter can control what it "prints", but is not responsible.
Those situations aren't the same. At all.
Historically, there were platforms (like newspapers) that had full control of what information they disseminated and had full responsibility for that information, and "common carrier" platforms (like the phone company) that did not control what information was disseminated and accordingly were not responsible for it.
Twitter and its brethren want the best of both worlds -- freedom to censor, but no responsibility.
They should have to choose one or the other.
I agree that this is a problem that I wish was addressed, but honestly, I dont know what kind of overreaching, anti-freedom (/s kind of?) law would need to be passed. The reason it worked for news papers was they were printing news, and news has to be true (or at least not outright lies).
Twitter, Facebook, *chan, parlor, Truth social (is that actually a thing yet?) would all just say they dont print the news, and that every post is opinion.
Which even the NYT opinion pieces don't fall under the same editorial scrutiny as their news, and legally are completely separate.
Nonsense
You should look at the thingy called "Opinion", and what kind of disclaimer NYT put around it
Someone is spouting nonsense here, but it isn't me.
you could sue person, much harder to sue newspaper
you could sue someone for a twit if you want to, nothing could stop you
No such protection exists for print media.
That worked when there were more than two platforms to post your opinions on.
There isn't a dearth of social media. There are a couple of GIANT social media websites that have sprung up in the last 2 decades, but there are dozens of semi-popular niche-ier forums that cater to any rant you might want to leave.
That's the point. FB/Twitter are now public utility size and usefulness. Your blog, not so much.
But also just because they are big platforms why does that give people a right to be on them? Is my speech less free because I have a smaller audience?
It is democratized moderation. If your following is small enough to skirt the mods, then you can post what ever you want. If your following is huge and you post a bunch of lies about sewer mutants, or that the covid vaccine gives you rabies, or that Hillary Clinton is actually a space alien in cahoots with Planned Parenthood to subsist off the flesh of aborted 6 year olds, then YES, they will remove your posts, and potentially ban you for a period of time.
This literally happens to my aunt every few weeks. She gets a weeks long ban for basically reposting only Russian spam, gets her account back and does it again. It has never even been permanent.
The amount of eyeballs available today for even small sites is far greater than it used to be pre-facebook.
And that's called censorship.
I do not get why people are under the impression that Twitter has to indulge their every tweet. They do not, will not, should not, and have not since the founding of the platform.
If you walk into a McDonalds and start selling your own hamburgers out of the bathroom unbeknownst to them, is it censorship when they finally discover the atrocity and have you removed? Is it stifling competition or free speech? Probably, but their house, their rules.
They don't. They never have. You're ascribing way more power to tech companies than they've ever had.
That being said, the combined power of tech companies and media companies -- of which there are many -- does have the ability you're talking about. (For example, Fox, Warner, Google, Nytimes, etc.) The lines certainly have become a bit blurred, with Comcast and Verizon buying media companies though.
Another example is lab leak.
Thus, yes, yes they do.
[1] https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/dorsey-says-blocking-posts-hun...
[2] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gen...
In fact, your bringing up the story (which I immediately recognized) proves the point. It is indeed, part of public discussion.
Edit: The point is that the story was part of the "public discussion" -- though I understand that some people disagree with some of the articles that were part of the public discussion. Disagreement is a normal part of "discussion." The original claim I was responding to was that this story was "suppressed" from "public discussion." It was not.
Politico: "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say" source: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-...
NPR: "Analysis: Questionable 'N.Y. Post' Scoop Driven By Ex-Hannity Producer And Giuliani" source: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924506867/analysis-questionab...
Compilation of journalists calling it disinfo: https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1440402740409110528
I honestly don't think I am following your argument at all. The fact that they wrongly reported on something without evidence is exactly the point.
33% of the US population thinks the 2020 election was stolen https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-12-28/pol...
What evidence do you have that they hold sway over society?
Trusted News Initiative says otherwise. Which is why all big platforms either censor or warn public on information that is counter to the Western governments narratives.
If all the insurance companies decide they won't insure you, how will you get health care? The government had to intervene (with the ACA) because that particular problem was so bad.
People trying to immigrate often have to use email to communicate with government agencies. If gmail bans their account, they can no longer talk to the immigration agency. I've seen a couple different people have this exact problem.
There are plenty of other examples.
Certainly governments have the power to do all these things as well, but large influential companies can absolutely ruin your life if you get the wrong kind of attention (or in the case of automated policy decisions, get unlucky).
And regardless - no business is going to send you to prison, while the state can. No business will shoot you, while the state can. So even in this interpretation of "how much can they fuck up my life" the state wins.
Businesses are free to shoot you as well, private security guards can carry guns in most parts of the US. Businesses can also send you to prison via false police reports, which is a thing that has happened periodically.
In some ways, huge tech companies are more powerful than governments. So why should they have the power to essentially remove ideas from public discussion?