On one hand, the servers everyone uses are owned by those companies. They're the company's servers, so they can store what they want on them, limit access to them, etc.. You don't have a right to their property and if you don't agree with their policy, you don't have to use their services. There are alternative services and should they ban enough people, the market would supply the demand and those companies will create their competition.
On the other hand, some of those platforms are a de-facto public forum. Twitter in particular is the President's primary means of communication. It's almost as if the government has outsourced/contracted-out it's role as public forum to these companies. If this is the case, then those public forums maybe shouldn't be suppressing free speech and can't just do what they want with their services. And maybe they have a bigger responsibility in policing their platforms? I dunno...
Not an easy thing one way or another. If they're de facto public forums, and so subject to stricter government control and regulation, then at what point does a platform become such a public forum? And do these rules apply offline as well to all venues?
I'm of the opinion that it's probably just company property. They can ban whoever they want for whatever reason they want. They' own those services, not me. If they're leftist outlets that ban conservatives, then so what? I could use someone else, create my own, create my own site, host my own servers....their ban doesn't actually suppress my speech as there are alternatives; they aren't monopolies (at least in the traditional understanding of monopoly).
