I don't think it's a question of the medium but a question of the actor doing the censoring. If the feds mandate the censoring on a private medium, I don't think it makes it legal. I think one difference is the enforcement, Google can't censor an individual universally, just on their platform, whereas the government can enforce it universally with force/jail/etc.

not really. it's just saying "this is mine, it's not public property or a public service, and thus i get to manage it how i want." I think MOST people would agree that that's a reasonable approach.

just because a lot of people rely on the google play store doesn't mean it's a public service in the legal sense. It's a very private piece of software that is NOT open source and is very obviously owned and managed by a single entity.

just like you get to choose who you let in your house. they get to choose how their software is used.

side note: monopoly is a separate issue.

It's the side effect of allowing a small number of largely unregulated companies to control so much of our communications. TV and radio using public right-of-ways like radio bands are much more tightly regulated to ensure "equal time". That's not the case for social media or mobile platforms and I suspect any attempt to regulate those would be met with a great deal of resistance. Not the least complaint would be that regulation has a history of keeping small players out, potentially further cementing the monopoly of a few companies. I don't know the answer to any of this, but I think it's something that will need to have an answer if our democracy is to survive.

That's the problem of the all-private internet. There is no virtual street corner at which to protest. There is no internet post office to handle your mail. There is no internet water utility who isn't allowed to shut off your service no matter how many people complain about you.

There is only profit. The moment you become unprofitable for whatever reason you will lose everything. If tomorrow 51% of the world decided they hated left-handed people they would all find their accounts disabled, their website registrations suspended, their entire online presence forced into secrecy.

So far that's only happened, to my knowledge, to terrorists and white supremacists, but there is absolutely no legal reason why it can't happen to anyone else.

And yet. There's a certain "side" that wants to have that both ways

Private companies can't censor "bad opinions"

But private companies can also arbitrarily refuse service for say, making a "gay wedding cake"

How is this disconnect rationalized?

It's not a deliberate trick on anyone's part, but rather complexity induced contradiction. Similar destruction has happened to other rights - jury trial via plea bargains, equal representation via forced arbitration clauses, "papers please" via driving and flying, unreasonable search and seizure via web services, double jeopardy via overlapping jurisdictions, and of course federated government via pervasive commerce.

I doubt the US Government has any hand in this, other than not wanting to be the ones running social media.

Or another trick, just place it in another country and then you don't have to worry about the 1st amendment at all, and no I'm not talking about China. UK or Australia will do just fine.

Capitalism rests on a negative conception of freedom, so yes.

Actually, this doesn't work. There's a specific court doctrine called the State Actors Rule. If a private entity is working on behalf of the government, then all of the constitutional protections applied to the government also apply to that private entity within the scope of them being a state actor. For example, this is why it is unconstitutional for Donald Trump to block you on Twitter, or for the Air Force's esports team to block you from their Twitch streams. This also extends to physical venues and company towns.