The government should not force someone under threat of violence to do work.

So if there’s a feedlot set up next door to your house, the government shouldn’t proactively require them not to dump the pig slurry into your backyard? Sure, maybe you can sue, but they’re thousands of times richer than you, and as the suit goes through the courts, you’re still buried in pig shit.

How about every credit card company refusing to deal with you because, for example, you’re a libertarian? Just fine, start your own bank? And how about a water company or some other lifeline utility?

It’s entirely reasonable for governments to impose standards on business. Everywhere and every time that has not happened, businesses have committed abuses. Even Adam Smith (the real one, not the modern crackpot who stole his name) knew that. “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

Social media platforms have a TOS that binds them just as much as the user.

They can change their TOS at any time, and frequently do so, so no, they are not bound “just as much as the user.”

It’s literally just a contract.

An unconscionable one, at best, considering the vast power disparity between a large social media site and any user. Clickthrough contracts should be banned outright. There’s no way to negotiate. It’s “my way or the highway.”

Tate’s just another example of what the rightwing mean by “free speech”-- they mean forced platforming for them, and suppression of anyone disagreeing.

No, a judge agreed with Meta’s objections and shut the lawsuit down.

it looks like we’re steering more toward another 1929 than another 1999

What really needs to happen is another 1789.

You’re using the wrong model. Look up how a pump-and-dump scam works, all will be revealed.