[SmokingJoe]

1. While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.”

2. This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

[semimojo]

Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.

The part about political viewpoints is the author's opinion and not addressed by the case he cites.

Do you wonder why, after all the complaints by conservatives over the last few years, there aren't a bunch of judgments against the tech's for political discrimination?

Do you think it may be because that discrimination isn't illegal?