It isn’t surprising that they get details wrong. It’s the same NY Times that called the constitution “dangerous”(https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/books/review/constitution...), fanning the flames of a kind of uncivil line of thinking that has unfortunately been more and more popular.

But this article itself makes mistakes - it does not seem to understand that the first amendment is about protecting free speech principles, which are actually much bigger than just what the first amendment says. The author makes an illogical claim that there is a category of speech that we want to illegitimize and shield platforms from. This is fundamentally opposed to the principles of free speech. Yes there is the tricky case of spam. But we should not block people based on political views or skepticism about science or anything else that is controversial. The censorship regime of big social media platforms should be viewed as an editorial choice, under law and in principle.

Lastly - large social media platforms are utility communication services and public squares. They need to be regulated and treated like a government agency, restricting their ability to ban users and content. After all, so much of today’s speech is on these platforms. Not being able to share your ideas there is similar to not having free speech rights at all.