Do Republicans not understand that coerced speech (forced platforming) is just as much a violation of the 1st amendment as censorship?

a lot of Republicans are complaining that they're being subjected to mass censorship in the wake of the storming of the Capital building because the social media sites of Trump and other prominent politicians are being removed. But a federal authority isn't coming in and stopping them from spreading their message; social media sites are denying them a platform. They then respond with one of two accusations: first is that the social media sites effectively control the digital airwaves so it is effectively censorship or they claim that the internet is a public space invoking supreme court cases that upheld the riot to protest on quasi public spaces. Well the first claim is blatantly false, no social media site has even >50% of the total social media accounts and and for the rulings protecting the freedom of speech in quasi public spaces, that's why we have net neutrality but that wouldn't apply to social media websites.
Do Republicans not understand that coerced speech (forced platforming) is just as much a violation of the 1st amendment as censorship?
They then try to claim that there's a double standard because the social media sites haven't shut down leftist politicians after all of the BLM and Antifa riots but this ignores one key difference: what happened in DC wasn't a riot, it was an attempted coup. I mean asking why social media sites are taking it more seriously than the riots is like asking why someone who committed attempted murder gets a greater sentence than someone who committed aggravated assault even if the severity of the injuries inflicted on their victims was the same. Also, Republicans will claim that there is collusion and site the fact that all these social media sites shut down Trump at the same time. But there are other explanations for that like convergence. As a tid bit, the fact that they're arguing collusion is occurring but are using it as an excuse for coerced speech as opposed to arguing for trust busting is really telling about how much they truly value "freedom of speech".
Updates:
12 d
Having section 230 protection doesn't mean that you forfeit the right to deny someone a platform for any reason other than their protected status (which does NOT include political views).
Do Republicans not understand that coerced speech (forced platforming) is just as much a violation of the 1st amendment as censorship?
0
16
Add Opinion