Nobody gives a shit that racists have email newsletters (I assume they do?). I mean, people might, in the abstract, rather they didn't, but nobody's really trying to stop them or say they can't do that. Google adds a "what's trending in email" feed to gmail and starts promoting those on there, however, and a whole lot of people (and advertisers) might ask Google to knock that shit off. And... like, rightly so?
Maybe not racists but a lot of people definitely do care if folks trying to manufacture WMDs or refine uranium/plutnoium have email newsletters.
Based on what reasoning?
I favor the framing "the internet as a whole is the public square" over framings such as "this social media company is or is not a public square". A particular social media company has no inherent social obligation to host a diverse range of opinions. Governments cannot tell social media companies to moderate in a certain way, but social media companies should be able to moderate however they want to based on just about any motivations.
A lot of speech is censored or demonetized by abusing overly broad defamation and copyright laws (false DMCA strikes come to mind). At the same time, some of the censorship you see is "the free market" at work. Advertisers don't want to have their ads run next to certain kind of content. So should platforms be compelled to host such content regardless?
And where do you draw the line between merely an app or website and a digital "public square"? Certainly Facebook or Twitter seem like the latter by virtue of their size and reach, but what about Hacker News? Mastodon instances? The Something Awful forums?