On personal level, I'm not particularly in favor of them doing it. The internet has always been rife with garbled nonsense, and I don't really see what makes this special.
BUT, you really mostly can have some level of control over content open to the public and be somewhat free from liability of that content. If I have a radio show, I have callers, the show isn't held responsible for what the callers say and isn't censoring them because it drops them for whatever reason it chooses.
In the end, having no control over the content is a disaster waiting to happen. And having government mandate something about the content is going to be a clownshow and a massively expensive endeavor. I find parts of the current arrangement problematic, but there's not much of a real solution that doesn't spin off many more real problems.
I am not, nor is anyone I have heard, proposing a government mandate to allow specific content.That would be a catastrophe.
Section 230, the rule of the law that protects them from liability from content. They do not have the same level of ability as a publisher to edit, so they are protected.
This has been controversial because of creepy things line sex trafficking- since it very difficult
to screen that garbage in real time. Just like your radio show example.
But the rule is clear- not to abuse the protection afforded them by censorship of dissenting political views. They are clearly, repeatedly doing just that.
I am surprised you don’t see the difference.
How they are operating in that area is exactly like a publisher. No freedom of speech. And child porn or anything like that is not included in free speech.
But several doctors talking about literally hope?
Clearly that doesn’t fit their agenda.