You're going to have to be more specific than a handwave-y "lots of people" to have good online discussions. You also need to be specific in your terminology. You need to actually address the specific people and their arguments, or else do a much better job of phrasing an inquiry into theoretical tradeoffs. Ie., from your other reply:

>What I don't understand is why AWS is justified to shut them down; but Google or Facebook is not justified in preventing their platforms from being propaganda distribution channels?

So I do in fact think Google and Facebook at 100% "justified" to shut them down, and I think Amazon is too. I do have lines where I think morally, if not legally, a service can start to drift into quasi-governmental (or perhaps should be that way) territory. An example for me would be core physical infrastructure companies, not just at Tier 3 but also at Tiers 2 and 1. I think those should operate as common carriers. But I don't think social media fits. Not using it at all (as I don't) may have "costs" in terms of social opportunities but alternatives are trivial.

So for me there isn't any dissonance here, I generally support "Big Tech" (and everyone down the ladder) associating as they see fit when it comes to ongoing online service relationships within existing jurisprudence. The initial legal tweaks I'd like would be aimed at things like expanding user power in a purely additive way (like giving people the option to access root hardware/software key stores), or internalizing costs some companies are shifting onto the public, rather then beating down what some people don't like.

Hacker News (and every other forum) aren't hive mind and it's silly and tiresome to have them treated that way. What you did in your first post here was essentially throw up a big silly strawman.