I don't understand this premise. Does this mean that before social media, newspapers should have ethically printed anything because it was the dominant form of communication? Should television companies have felt ethically compelled to host people of all views?I agree. I realize they are private companies so can do what they want, but ethically since they have become the dominant form of communication (and certainly enjoy the benefits of being so) they shouldn’t be in the business of censoring speech they don’t like. It really is on a lifeline and unfortunately many don’t care or worse root for its demise.
And as for it being on a lifeline, I don't see this either. Sure, I suppose there are fewer outlets for social media that reach a large percentage of the population, really only facebook, twitter, maybe one or two others. But these companies are in no way forcing users to get their news and views from them. There's linked in, snapchat, instagram, youtube, reddit, and countless internet forums. 30 years ago, if a normal, everyday person wanted to get a message out to the country, there were basically 0 options. Now there are many, if the message is judged worthy of being heard. There is the whole internet for communicating information. People have the freedom of speech. They don't have the freedom to force others to listen. People have greater access to publishing their opinions than at any time in history, and you think that freedom of speech is hanging by a thread?