The point is that social media companies advertise themselves as neutral platforms for the public to express themselves freely without fear of censorship beyond the "common sense" censorship of blocking pornography, violence, and criminal acts. Their actions of shadow banning accounts that express certain political views is counter to the social contract they have made with the public. Then, when they are called on their bad faith actions, they cite nebulous or superficial reasons or don't give any reason at all for the hypocrisy. The NY Post story really doesn't violate any rules and is a clear case of political censorship, which Dorsey has repeatedly said in the past that Twitter does not do. Dorsey lied, freedom died.
Twitter either needs to change their tune and declare that they have a bias against conservatism, or do a 180 deg. turn and be truly neutral in their censorship efforts. Lying to the public is verboten.
1. I've never read or heard anyone from any of these social media platforms make this claim.
2. Even if they did, I don't see how any of this would be covered under "false advertising" protections because I don't know anyone who actually PAYS to use any of these stupid things.