“But the author rightly argues that when the hosts of Social Media volunteer to police content based upon politics, social perspectives, etc., they are taking responsibility to not only be liable for harmful language, but are obligated to provide free-speech access to anyone, regardless of ideology, religion or Party affiliation.”
No, they are not obligated to provide access to everyone, they simply become legally liable for speech on their platform once they assume a certain level of editorial control.
Even if, for the sake of argument, they were to be regulated like a utility, as television networks are, they wouldn’t be obligated to provide access. The “Fairness Doctrine” is no longer in effect.
So you would have no problem if AT&T cut off your access to communicate. Because “they are not obligated to provide access to everyone.”
The fact remains that there is a big difference from merely hosting content and having no responsibility for what users post — and deciding to edit, ban, delete content based upon social/political ideology.
The latter makes them subject to the same regulations that apply to Television/Radio etc. Hence, the operators of Social Media are finding themselves being questioned in Congressional hearings.
If this sort of social media censorship continues, their free-wheeling Internet laissez-faire status will end.
“No, they are not obligated to provide access to everyone, they simply become legally liable for speech on their platform once they assume a certain level of editorial control.”
While your point is true corporate-owned social media has become the de-facto public square and if Americans are to remain free, laws will have to crafted that ensure that social media sites that have a monopolistic position cannot infring upon the rights of Americans. You may not like it but it is coming because the tech masters of the universe need to be brought to heel.