What you should ask yourself is this: irrespective of whether compliance is voluntary or not, is political censorship on social media OK? And what kind of a logical knot one must contort one’s mind into to suggest that this is the second coming of net neutrality? Personally I think the mere fact that the government is able to lean on a private company like that is damning AF.
All large sites have terms of service. If you violate them, you might be removed, even if you're "the dominant electoral candidate". Remember, no one is above the law, or in the case, the rules that a site wishes to enforce.
I'm not a fan of political censorship (unless that means enforcing the same ToS that everyone else is held to, in which case, go for it). Neither am I for the radical notion of legislation telling a private organization that they must host content that they don't wish to.
This has zero to do with net neutrality. Nothing. Nada.
Is there evidence that the government leaned on a private company instead of meeting with them and asking them to do a thing? Did Facebook feel coerced into taking actions they wouldn't have willingly done otherwise?
By asking.
The government asking you to do something is like a dangerous schoolyard bully asking for your lunch money. Except the gov has the ability to kill, imprison, and destroy. Doesn’t matter if you’re an average Joe or a Zuckerberg.
I don't think that's settled law.
For example, suppose the US Postal Service opens a new location, and Google Maps has the pushpin on the wrong place or the hours are incorrect. A USPS employee submits a report/correction through normal channels. How is that trampling on Google's first-amendment rights?
Everybody who paid protection to the mafia did so "voluntarily", too.