They can be sued for all kinds of things if there is a case to be made. But they are immune from being sued for libel perpetrated by others using their services. The populists are trying to exploit a threat of removing that limited liability to force them to help inflammatory conservative promotions.

Tech companies don't enjoy any protection from being sued.
Your issue is that you want to sue them for things that can't rightly be sued for and you want laws changed to help accommodate this.
All because they disagree with you politically.
In other words, you want to censor those you disagree with while claiming to be fighting censorship.
Only conservatives can be this completely confused about everything.

I agree, I had something in mind when I wrote that, cannot remember what! Maybe something like that when in public you and your property are subject to agreements you are in.

There is no "flip flopping". Populists who are emotionally stampeded by some public spokesman find themselves unable to objectively discuss the issue, superficially grasping at pat slogans to toss out as they become increasingly personally belligerent in their feuding. Look at the quality of the posts they can't answer and subject to hit and run 'downvoting'.

Some of their posts sound less like an Ayn Rand forum than John Kenneth Galbraith in the 1960s and 70s. Such is the 'tradition' that has become ingrained.

Conservatives are calling on the government to do something about tech companies kicking them off their property.
This means they are calling for censorship.
Among numerous other leftist rights violations.

This position has never changed, so not sure what you think is flip flopping

And these populists seem to be in full force here too.
Down voting things that shouldn't even need to be explained.

Populist conservatives trying to use government to control other's speech is censorship. That is not "flip flopping" on a valid definition.

That the First Amendment pertains only to restrictions by government is fundamental and not new. Conservatives used to understand that. Now they are package-dealing government action with private action to rationalize controlling private companies in the name of what used to be common understanding of freedom of speech and the fact that censorship is wrong.

Conservatives and liberals share a common principle: they each want to control what they regard as important.

We can also add that actual censorship in radio and tv stations and in movies is imposed by or threatened by government, such as for certain kinds of language. Forcing the stations to implement that does not mean that anything a station does not choose to provide a forum for is "censorship".

Collaboration to arrange 'downvoting' posts and 'downvoting' specific people for who they are is contrary to the guidelines of this forum. Under the First Amendment this privately owned forum has the right to restrict that. It is not "censorship" and does not require a personal dictionary.

Providing a platform for the purpose chosen by the owner does not in logic necessarily make the owner responsible for libelous material created by a user, especially with no chance for the forum owner to remove it only after investigation. Abusing libel law to intimidate a forum is unethical, statist control. Under conservative populist controls forums such as this one could not exist.

Yes, laws protecting specific rights of the individual in the context of new technology are not "regulation".

Apart from the definition and usages of the word 'censor'-
The argument used would force a christian baker to provide a cake with a message denigrating his view of marriage, otherwise he is 'censoring'.

It is correct to say, the tech companies have substantial legal protection as they are a provider, on top of that they suppress views they don't like under the guise of stopping hate speech, the public good, or whatever they may call it. Altruism again is used as a cover to promote self-interest.
But if private property cannot be used for promoting views and interests of owners, then, well, .. .

To attack the hypocrisy, theft and lies of big tech the approaches are-
avoid using, make their misdeeds more public, seek legal avenues such as remove special legal protection they have but small competitors do not, go for their breaches of contracts (legal systems recognize understood contracts), illegal snooping, misuse of private data. If you go the way of imposing a regulator you will get something that has built-in organic growth and you will not be able to control or stop it.
(I have used pragmatic type arguments, the Objectivist position should be obvious).

Conservatives are censoring? How convenient that you can flip flop back and forth on your and EWE’s definition that only the govt can censor.

Good down vote EWV and Peter Smith.
Maybe the EWV-Peter Smith dictionary should be published.
These tech companies are afforded protection from being sued for the content of their site because they claim to be a platform not a content provider like a news paper or news organization.
Yet they take that protection and still act as an editor. You cannot have it both ways.

That the First Amendment protects individuals from government, not granting entitlements, is fundamental. Conservatives used to understand that. Now they have been stampeded by populist demagogues in the media encouraging resentment in order to drum up support for statist controls.

Rights are not "privileges" and incur no "responsibilities" to serve.

Immunity from legal liability for libelous actions by individuals who use the platform is not a "privilege". If companies were held legally liable for actions of customers no one could be in business.

The first amendment restricts government, not private enterprise.
Tech companies kicking people off their property will NEVER be censorship.

That was not "one of Ayn Rand's basic tenets" and is not true. Ayn Rand's principles are not whatever bromides conservatives happened to believe before they found Atlas Shrugged, usually based on a hodge podge of 'traditional' beliefs echoed as "intuitive", i.e. uncritically accepted, from both conservative and liberal mixed economy statists.

If you want to understand what Ayn Rand said about anti-trust read "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

You should read Ayn Rand's non-fiction to understand the philosophy that made Atlas Shrugged possible.

That is not even a sentence. An "ingrained business" does not become subject to government control because it is important.

Without private property you have nothing to trade, nothing to receive, and no rights. to either or the act of trading. Rights do not stop when you engage in trade, they make trade possible.

This has nothing to do with your imaginary psychologizing, nothing to do with "Pearl Harbor", and nothing to do with "Nazi sympathizers" or any of your other excursions. The Nazis did not bomb Pearl Harbor. None of that is a defense of dogmatic statism violating the First Amendment.

Not helping someone is not preventing him from living his own life without you and no one is cutting off telephone lines. You are a statist employing standard statist bromides and fear mongering while ignoring what government power has in fact done to people.

CIA conspiracy theories are not fact and not relevant. You do not tell people here to go do research and not come back until we agree with your conspiracy theories as "fact", let alone an excuse for statist control of private businesses.

Google is not denying my free speech.

Giving more and more power to government to control private individuals and companies whenever someone doesn't like what they do has been the "point" of the progressives for a century.

This is the chickens coming home to roost for conservatives relying on "tradition". Yesterday's liberal is today's conservative, following in line.

Economics and moral arguments are not based on imagining "every store in the country getting together" in a national price fixing scheme. Private companies deciding what they choose to publish are not "Germany WWII censorship".