I'm not sure why this needs to be said, but "you" in this context is conceptually an abstraction of the private citizen. Maybe @shadowgovt the individual never says a word that the establishment would disapprove of, but don't count on that always being the case, and certainly don't expect others to fall in line in that regard. Is it your opinion that the government should have such power - specifically to, without officially commandeering/nationalizing the companies, to direct them to censor disfavored non-criminal speech?
I personally believe the government can certainly pass information on to private corporations and then the private corporations can then choose what to do.
Whether the situation went past that is what this court case would be about, and nothing has been decided on that topic yet.
