if only people could stop being raging dicks....  >.>  <.<

Actually, I think the biggest issue is the duality of thought.   "Good vs Evil"  Us vs them...

The US spent soooo much time and energy "winning" the cold war that once it was over the only enemy left was our neighbors....

It wil not happen. Cause you got second amendment.

By the way. Twitter stock plummeted.

Ill make this point, Congress is government, when Sitting members of congress who are in a position of power and able to make law in the government and are openly calling for people to be silenced this is government silencing people and violating the 1A.   

There was a court ruling that applied to government officials in or around 2017 that stated a government official can not block people in a public forum such as Twitter etc.  Because it allowed people to have an avenue to express their opinions.

Amazon broke several laws by silencing one of their competitors.  Amazon owns another social media app, I believe snapchat. 

Government is serviced by Google in our schools.  Schools are regulated by our Congress.  I hope everyone can see the problems here with any forms of censorship.

People that went to protests have lost their Jobs.  This is a major problem.

You have the meaning of "Karen" 100% wrong. The Karen is the one yelling at the person without a mask on. Typical Orwellian tactic though, trying to change the meaning of a word.

Private companies can make dress code to address those tees.  As far as firing someone for attending a protest, I disagree with or even give their opinion online.  People should be able to do things on their own time as long as they are not posting bad things about the company they work for. This is the problem with the damn internet, it is too much entangled into our personal and work life.  Companies should not have this much control over us.

We are walking a thin line for freedoms and large corps should not be telling us what we can or can't do.

as far as taking any leader offline because they say things people don't like.  Hitler did that with speech.  He used propaganda to win over the masses kind of like what we see with MSM now. 

Incitement to riot has always been a 'crime'.  Has nothing to do with social media other than that is yet another avenue to voice it.

The social media sites are private and are thus not required to abide by the rules of 'free speech', no matter how people wish to interpret the term.

Stardock's sites/forums are also privately owned and set their own rules of conduct.  Rightly, they prohibit quite a bit of what people claim they are entitled to do under the heading of 'free speech'.  You cannot [here] discriminate by politcs, race, creed or sexual preference.  You cannot [here] bully, insult or otherwise negatively impact on a fellow site member without censure.

'freedom of speech' is often claimed to empower people to do all of that.

To hold and/or voice an opinion contrary to that of the State is not a free ticket to tell people to assault others, no matter who you think you are.

Agreed. 

Social Media companies have every right to restrict or limit users even if they are still abiding by the TOS. They are a private company, however, if the TOS policy states something, it should be applied evenly among the users and without prejudice.

Not true based on the amount of power around the world social media has.  they have public function by creating a platform for people to share ideas.

In 1946, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh v. Alabama that a private entity that behaves like a government body and offers a public function is subject to the United States Constitution. In short, massive corporations, in some instances, are more powerful than the United States government. Due to their size, big tech often acts as a de facto government.

Not actually relevant.

In 1946 there was nothing even vaguely akin to Facebook etc.

Facebook does not provide a 'public function' as you are required to register with a private entity in order to use it.

It may be wide-spread and universally accessible...but it's still a private forum by definition as there are private rules of 'engagement'...

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6

A lot of cray-cray there but no 'incitement to riot' by any rational definition.  Kamala Harris's language about BLM/Antifa riots was more specifically inciting than anything Trump actually said.  And don't go stupid on me - I can't stand Trump's ego and grandstanding but my eyes/ears don't tell me what the media is trumpeting (see what I did there?).

"In 1946 there was nothing even vaguely akin to Facebook etc."  Also arguably irrelevant:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105?