> The idea that a private social/sharing/communications platform should be required to carry the messages of the head of government is strongly authoritarian and quite unconstitutional.
Except it's neither authoritarian nor unconstitutional. Private companies are already _required_ to carry government messaging. Several examples: emergency broadcast system, AMBER alerts or presidential alerts (which cannot be silenced) to your phone.
AFAIK there is not a similar legal basis for requiring a social media company to participate in the rebroadcasting of a specific individual's speech just because of their current elected position.
Except it's neither authoritarian nor unconstitutional. Private companies are already _required_ to carry government messaging. Several examples: emergency broadcast system, AMBER alerts or presidential alerts (which cannot be silenced) to your phone.