If you want to be treated as an apolitical private corporation than you cannot ban individuals for their political beliefs and pretend there will not be political oversight and rule eventually. If you want to appeal to 100% of the market, then don't be political either. These monopolies are the instrument of their own fracture, as this very website is evidence of.

No, they are funded by tax dollars and social programs. They are now in effect the "public square." They are obligated to protect free speech.

Can they? Of course; they are doing it. Should they? Not in the way they are (a blatant censoring of ideas that ridicule or disprove the leftist narrative). Now the big question: Should they be allowed to? I don't know and can see both sides.

On one hand, if they are purely a private company, telling them to permit speech they think offensive is hard to justify.

Against this, however, a few counterpoints? Are social media companies really private entities? These influential giants, these beneficiaries of public funds? Are they public accomodation businesses? Public utilities, like the phone company? Would it be ok if your phone carrier suspended your service because they didn't like what you talked about to your friends? Would it be ok if banks refused your business because they didn't like your politics (which has happened to companies with gun-industry ties, btw)? I'm open to other points of view here (unlike Zuck and Dorsey, et al.). Opinions?

I think it is reasonable for a company to regulate itself. The issue is that a private domain is being used as a public square, and is advertising itself as such, but regulating itself as a private domain. If twitter, for example, advertises itself as an open social sphere, but doesn't allow open dialogue, them it is false advertisement. I do think that knowing that your social media platform is used as a public forum that has an impact on the social and political sphere, there is a duty to make sure that it is open to all.

The dictates of international business insist that there are no boundaries in order to maximize worldwide profit. These institutions have no loyalty to national boundaries. They are rogue players who avoid taxes in their native countries, and run from all responsibility to anything resembling citizenry. No honor, no stoicism, no sense of community, no loyalty, no decency, just larcenist glares as they explain their plans to avoid taxes via their questionable non-profit/charitable organizations.

Can they regulate? Most definitely. Whether or not such regulation is fair, is another topic altogether...

Social media has become the virtual public square. They were created, at least in part, by tax payer funds. NSA has their dirty fingers in Face Book and the rest of them up to their knuckles. They are just mad because they are having trouble "programing" people and controlling the narrative when we are allowed to speak our minds... Can they? Yes. At this point in time they can. Is it Right though? IMO No it is not right. IOW, Should they be able to regulate speech? Hell NO.