In fact, I'll own it: if history forces me to choose between a 1984 dystopia and a Brave New World dystopia, I'll choose Brave New World 100% of the time. I do trust corporations more than unanswerable governments; at least, I trust my ability to walk away from Amazon more than my ability to walk away from the organization that pays the police.
And on the topic of this article: I trust a world where a Donald Trump gets kicked off of every social media network and responds by starting his own way more than a world where the government says to, for example, Reddit: "You must keep Donald Trump on your site. And as long as we're dictating rules, here are our other demands..."
I should point out that the Westminster Declaration also attacks government censorship - presumably you agree with that part of it? As well as with the counter-speech interpretation of it - i.e. calling out companies that censor, exposing them to social, not legal, consequences?
It's tiresome to see all the problems of government/corporate censorship ignored with "I don't want government forcing me/giant corporations to promote evil people", while ignoring the options of social resistance to this censorship (i.e. not just making alternative platforms, but criticizing and pressuring existing platforms (the pro-censorship side doesn't shy away from pressure campaigns). To compare it with labor rights, they weren't won with "just quit and go work at a factory that doesn't employ children".), and ignoring the instances where government itself is legislating censorship.
Easier to sling dirt at the founders than admitting you want giant (and for most of the world, foreign) corporations to set the bounds of public discourse, isn't it?