Supreme Court allows White House contacts with social media firms
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
If you can't show that the government is pressuring private companies to suppress speech, then there's literally no First Amendment violation. The plaintiffs in this case have failed to demonstrate that the government pressured the companies to suppress their speech... which means they've failed to point out a First Amendment violation.
Standing is like this. Let's say that you and your cousin start a business. And you decide that you get 3/4 of the profits, and your cousin gets 1/4. I decide that's unfair to your cousin. So I sue you, because that's unfair.
The courts don't care. They don't want to hear it. Your cousin can sue; I can't. The courts do not have time to deal with every possible thing that someone might think is wrong. You have to show that it harmed you.
To have standing in this kind of case, the plaintiffs have to demonstrate traceability of their repercussions to the government's actions through a third party. The underlying merits is whether or not the government is trying to enforce repercussions via third parties. If the government is doing so, then definitionally, someone is going to have their repercussions traceable to government action, and therefore someone has standing to object to it. But if nobody has traceable actions, then the government has kind of by definition did no wrong.
Being reprimanded by the social media companies before you alleged the government started pressuring them to reprimand people like you rather weakens your case a whole lot, it turns out.