While I generally agree, it has little to do with protected speech.
The crux of the matter is that they claim freedom from liability based upon their claim they do not police content.
Yet they police content as any other publisher does.
Yes, they are trying to have it both ways. And soon the courts will hammer them for it. And somebody will get rich. Maybe dozens.
But I contend they can police content if they wish to do so.
And that freedom will cost them billions.
Yes, they have an absolute right to police content as they see fit. And we have every right as a democratic republic to revoke the exemption from liability that they current enjoy as a platform, not a publisher.