The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

> Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.

> The first amendment does not protect you against anything but the government. Full stop.

Even setting aside this opinion, this is false, at least according to the Supreme Court. See the PruneYard case that this court repeatedly cites https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....

That decision does not dispute what you quoted at all. That case is not even about the first amendment, it is based on California’s state constitution. In fact your link makes the exact claim as the one you say is false.

> the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech

Touché! But the bit I quoted is something of a non sequitur as this case, like PruneYard, concerns a state law extending additional speech protections into the private sector, so PruneYard does seem relevant, as PruneYard affirmed a state’s ability to do this. Further, it doesn’t seem much rebuttal of this ruling about a state law to argue the First Amendment offers no protection to those censored by Facebook (as the part I quoted was doing). The First Amendment enters the case in terms of whether it protects Facebook from this law, not whether it protects users from censorship corporate censorship.

What personal consequences do you think should come to federal officials who explicitly requested social media companies to censor specific people and certain categories of speech?

> The first amendment does not protect you against anything but the government.

Which is why Texas has to pass a regular law to protect us from the corporation, as the Constitution fails at that.