Power in the form of censorship

Quotes:

•  it was reported that Parler has sued Amazon Web Services and in a statement the company claimed, "AWS's decision to effectively terminate Parler's account is apparently motivated by political animus. AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter. AWS is also breaching it[s] contract with Parler, which requires AWS to provide Parler with a thirty-day notice before terminating service, rather than the less than thirty-hour notice AWS actually provided. Finally, AWS is committing intentional interference with prospective economic advantage given the millions of users expected to sign up in the near future."
  
• "Internet censorship is an incredibly divisive topic right now," said Claire Cole, creative partner at Gamblers Pick.
• "Our study found that more than one in four people believe there should be more censorship on the Internet, while nearly one in three believe there should be less censorship," added Cole. "But despite varying opinions, a majority of people are in agreement that social media platforms should have the right to censor content within their platform(s)."
• "The original Internet was based on the premise that, if you don't like, don't look," explained technology industry consultant Lon Safko, author of The Social Media Bible. "For the 25 years the Internet has been available, all us early adopters to the Internet have always been chocked and pleased. That for one-quarter of a century, our government has not got involved, hasn't interfered with, and hasn’t imposed regulations on the Internet. The only time we saw our government make a historical intervention was charging tax on Internet purchases. Few remember when anything you purchased on the Internet did not include state sales tax."
• "(The social media platforms) have overwhelmingly censored Trump and his administration," added Safko. "Any form of censorship, any form, is unacceptable. Social platform such as Facebook, whose primary business is open communication between its over 2.7 billion members, have a moral and legal responsibility to allow those conversations to transpire, organically. All conversations, all sides of that conversation. And, if the viewer disagrees or is offended by that conversation, then it is their right to simply close the window and walk away."
• "For Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter and others to deliberately censor, manipulate, and influence an entire U.S. Election to attain their own personal political objectives is not only criminal, but a form of treason. It is clearly stated in the U.S. Constitution. They should be held accountable," Safko 
• "Once again, as a purveyor of information that reaches billions of people on a global scale, those social platforms have a moral and legal responsibility to deliver that information clearly, organically, and without political censorship," noted Safko. "Whatever administration is inaugurated on January 20th, this must become a top national priority. If it doesn't become a priority, then we the people must demand the answer as to why that administration is choosing to ignore treason within our borders."

Question:

- "Should social media companies and big tech have the right or the power to silence voices on their platforms?"

Answer:

I believe it is wrong for social media companies and big tech companies to silence voices on platforms but i believe regulation is needed so illegal content  is not circulated around the internet. This is because this gives them too much power and allows them to change ideologies and peoples ideas etc... It also gives them the ability to change views of people and possibly even gives them power to change the results of things such as rigging elections. This can also possibly give governments more power than they already have because of these social media and big tech companies backing them. However I believe regulation of illegal content is needed, because there are very many times where there are very graphic images that should be regulated towards certain groups e.g. children, but not taken away all together because people should be able to watch what they want in freedom.