There should be a serious discussion throughout society and the halls of Congress regarding free speech and the internet.
Are platforms like Twitter not the modern equivalent to the public square? Are they not THE place where speech is heard, first and foremost?
Absolutely not. The public square was exactly that - property maintained by the public. Twitter is private property, period. Outside of a few very narrow exceptions it is unconstitutional for the government to make any attempt to control what is published on their site.
The first amendment was explicitly created to protect the country from this.
What speech can be delivered without the utility service provided to citizens by the modern public square?
The idea that if a private service becomes sufficiently popular it loses the protection of the constitution is a very dangerous idea.
Utilities like water, electricity, etc. are considered utilities because they are requirements for every day life and not easily or efficiently replicated. Society does not benefit from having 10 separate water pipes to your house, for example. Twitter on the other hand can be (and has been!) repeatedly replicated, and there are many, many alternatives for communication available to everyone.
OTOH, we're starting to see serious ill side effects of free speech when it delivers propaganda and the masses believe it over reality.
The fate of social media, like Twitter, means a lot to the future of our society. And I am not certain what the correct course of action should be, other than it needs careful study and due consideration.
The answer is simple - they are private actors protected by the first amendment the same as anyone else and we should never change this...ever. If you think otherwise ask yourself this - if suddenly the government could control the content of what is allowed on social media who do you think would be most willing to use that power? You don't have to look any further than Florida to see the answer to that.