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.
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..."