Pretty much every time somebody backs up these kinds of claims it shows something else.

1) posts going out 500 times a day in all caps (who is arguing you can’t suppress spam?)

2) the post that you read and so clearly wasn’t suppressed.

3) they’re linking to a low scoring comment

If you don't want that, no editorialising, let people see just the people they follow or what their friends share and that is it.

Can't have it both ways.

Nobody is going to want to use a platform with spam.

I don't know you, this is not a social. If we were friends and you did that I'd unfriend you and be done.

The alternative being having human moderators, which socials don't want to have because it costs money.

You may not feel that way and thats fine. Just like people think the world is flat. Nothing you do is going to be affected by that ignorance.

Words change around you. Much like how Republican doesn’t mean fiscal responsibility or small government for many decades.

Personally I think making them public square is probably the only real solution if you want to keep social media and avoid this drama, or make them liable as publishers and these platforms will disappear overnight (maybe the best result?!?)...

This carries over into LLMs I presume, which have bias and I assume are not being sued for the content the publish? I'm not really sure about how it applies to LLMs to be honest.

Regardless, other countries will have different laws, that have different takes on censorship and what private companies are responsible for.

I don’t see this as a problem. They could just as easily have changed their business model and invested more heavily in content moderation. Maybe it wouldn’t have been as profitable, but profit is a great motivator to do bad things.

[1] Of course, that was plainly censorship with a veneer of plausible deniability (it assumed those embeds could only be truthful and unbiased and in no way politically motivated).