US Supreme Court and the First Amendment

Below you will find Matt Taibbi being interviewed about US Government overreach in censoring speech, and the case involving social media companies currently before the US Supreme Court. 

The justices have a balancing act to perform. On the one hand, private companies must have the right to trade profitably, legally, and to make decisions about the environment its staff and customers inhabit. In this case, what kind of social media experience users will enjoy. On the other hand, government must be able to call anyone up about anything that concerns them, and not be hamstrung by rules that may prevent them from governing effectively. 

So, what happens if the government is effectively threatening, cajoling and coercing social media to behave, and what if the result of these actions are people cannot communicate with one another in a way that allows the free flow of information. Is there such a thing as acceptable, and unacceptable information?

Is the government always right, and does the government know what truth is, and does it decide what a fact is? Clearly, they are not always right and are not the single source of truth. But in a social media environment, some moderation is required as if you don't moderate to some extent, the place becomes a shouting match where bullies prevail and where the boorish fill up the place with distasteful behaviour.

Matt Taibbi proved that governments have backdoors into these social media companies; they ban people, remove content, censor free speech. As an example, right now my replies on YouTube are being scrubbed. Only certain opinions are countenanced. Quite frankly, I fail to see how that approach helps anyone, it certainly doesn't lead to greater understanding by those involved in a conversation.

I should point out the elephant sitting in the corner of the room. Clearly, there is an agenda here limiting free speech. Across the developed world, governments are at war with its own people. Some would argue this has been going on for a long time, but I would say that that has certainly been the case since 2020. So, when it comes to the US Supreme Court making a good decision in balancing private and government interests, I'm not holding my breath.