link to original reddit post by /u/FourFingeredMartian
Under normal circumstances private business are not subjected to upholding any Constitutional protections of their users because its a private entity utilizing private property & are freely able to exclusively enjoy their property as they see fit, yet, I'll contend Twitter & FB have manged to carve for themselves an exemption to this normal provision because of various, but,specific actions/expression they've conducted without having been coerced by Government (ie either through legislation, regulation, nor the threat thereof). I'll almost exclusively focus on Twitter to make my point, but, I'd expect many of my justifications will find parallels at other like organizations/companies (social media companies) which illustrates the distinction of how/why they're of such a category. Social Media companies through both their marketing and platform have decided to create between themselves and Government a unique nexus (one which encompasses The People) as both parties understand Government may/does utilize the platform to facilitate two way communication between themselves & the public, even its users. This nexus was wilful, enticed, establishing a continued fostering relationship through various mechanisms on/including the platform itself. Therefore, because of those actions which have lead to the mutual understanding between both Twitter & Government the platform enables/fosters bidirectional communication between officials/Departments/Reps (both of an official, even unofficial, messaging, conversations) to members of the public then it necessitated that the speech of its USA users are upheld to the degree stipulated by Congress/SCOTUS rulings specifying those limits of speech via an act that incurs zero cost on Twitter: tolerating the speech of their USA users, thus, protecting a user's ability to fully express themselves meaningfully, effectively with not only each other, but, more importantly with their Government.
The platform established measures/protocol which provides to Government Reps/Organizations/officials an official Avatar/profiles (accounts are found spanning all three branches) allowing those accounts to facilitate communication by officials/(algos or reps) to the public via the platform. This ability is advertised & promoted by both Twitter & Government for that exact intent & purpose. To further illustrate this deliberate intention by Twitter they've enabled a means by which users are able to distinguish official Government accounts from others, even parody accounts to ensure this distinction is upheld if/when ambiguity arises. Twitter established a set of rules which they will then use to ban such accounts in order to keep clear the distinction between official Government accounts & those which are not Government accounts. For example parody accounts can't have an actual, official logo; its name must clearly indicate the account is parody/fake & bio must also reflect that fact. This facilitates official Governmental messaging to The People; the general public & Gov via the platform & its utilized in such a manner by both parties as such because that's the exact understanding each have of the platform.
Further, such accounts are enabled via the platform a specified reach to users of the platform when content is thought to be of an importance to them, such as COVID-19 updates/information; requirement of masks; restrictions; etc. Even how a person can obtain information about ballot locations. While it's easy to say such messaging is like that of a news wire; quite often people are able to acquire information of that agency which is relevant to a question posed to the account or where such resources can be acquired (ie a link) which may help with answering a question, thus, being distinct between that of a mere news-wire. Yet, users almost everyday criticize officials from Congress on the platform & even interact with users on the platform be it from liking a user's remark, retweeting a message, or messaging/answering a question all of which show how Twitter & Government has decided to make for themselves a nexus which is distinct from say that of MySpace, or even Reddit (unless they're using a subreddit for official communications) or any other website which hasn't decided to allow their platform to be utilized in an official capacity. It's because of the level of interaction was desired by both parties necessitates this nexus which only dictates that a user's speech is only limited by the 1stA instead of the "community standards". What Twitter & the like have established for themselves & the USA Public is a public easement on their private property. Their actions are to clearly allow, facilitate & aid the Government in speech, but, in doing so they're hoping to be able to neglect a party which is already a member, The People; the USA Government is a Government by the People & For The People, thus, they've required of themselves to tolerate the speech which The People may engage.
Thoughts of why I'm right or wrong?