I think first they need to define and what point does social media become a public forum with an expectation of free speech and not a private service.
What’s the difference between facebook, twitter, and FreeRepublic?
Freerepublic states up front that it is a conservative discussion site. Specifically...”Free Republic is a site dedicated to the concerns of traditional grassroots conservative activists. We’re here to discuss and advance our conservative causes in a more or less liberal-free environment. We’re not here to debate liberals. We do not want our pages filled with their arrogant, obnoxious, repugnant bile. Liberals, usurpers, and other assorted malcontents are considered unwelcome trolls on FR and their accounts and or posts will be summarily dismissed at the convenience of the site administrators.”
Facebook and twitter, don’t openly promote an agenda, but evidence is that they secretly promote an agenda.
Size and influence.
Let me ask you this. Why does any of these mega-corporations want to censor speech? Is it because that speech might influence the public, and therefore influence elections?
It's a struggle over the power to elect people to support your agenda. That's what it is about.
Well for starters Freerepublic doesn't have 2,000,000,000 subscribers, after that pretty much the same. Oh and one is worth a couple hundred million the other....well less than that I would guess.