I don't want free martek experimentation here. Freedom and promotion of speech has massive effect on society and politics of the day. It's massively inappropriate to put market forces and wallstreet quarterly reports in charge of it.

Free speech in a public, shared space is a constitutional right. Free speech to write whatever you want on a private company's website is not. It's governed by their terms of service.

As long as their terms of service is applied equally and consistently it should be legal as far as I know. Maybe you could make the argument that their rules are discriminatory and aren't being (or can't be) enforced equally, but that's different from telling a company that they have to accept any type of content without restriction.

FB, YT, Reddit, Twitter, etc. have been removing posts and banning users for years. So, the act isn't new, but the fact that it's being applied to the President is new.

The problem with that argument is that speech is moving online, and there is no public shared space - all platforms are private.

So you've just privatised policing of free speech, and it's now subject to arbitrary rules and whims of management and wall-street. Twitter can ban you if they don't like what you are saying, and they are not obligated to enforce rules equally or to even explain what you breached. The terms and conditions are very fuzzy on to what is actually offensive.

If I host my own website, my cloud provider can ban me. If I self host at home on my own server, my internet service provider could cut me off - my ISP contract has a specific clause in their contract, stating that they could cut me off if they deem my content offensive, they are judge, jury and executioner and they owe me no explanation.

All of this creates great potential for foul play, where a hypothetical rich or powerful person or party could silence embarrassing news with a few phone-calls, and there is sod all you could do about it.

Isn't that exactly what happened with the internet?

And it seems the market have already chosen that a slightly moderated but not too heavily model seems to retain and attract the most users.

Twitter I don't think is putting in place these moderation mechanism for fun or through their own personal CEO's own moral and ethics. They do what they think will be best for business.

There is no constitutional edge or corner case. The language, for once, is unambiguous.

Wait, to be clear you mean the language "Congress shall make no law" which clearly doesn't apply to Twitter? I agree it's unambiguous the constitution doesn't allow the government to restrict Twitter's rights