Correct. There's no such amendment like "slavery is okay, up until 11 people then it's bad"
If slavery is allowed then it is. If it's a million or 1 it doesn't matter, it's equally allowed. If we give someone the right to freedom that means ALL get the right to freedom.
> Ten people being denied their rights is no different from hundreds of millions?
Do I really have to explain this? We cannot permit even one person denied their rights. It isn't acceptable in small quantities and then suddenly become a problem when it's 200 million.
But as I have clearly stated and has been obvious for years, you don't have a right to use privately owned web sites. The attempt to paint it as such is only a marketing ploy by those very same sites in order to paint themselves as essential to our lives. They are not. Delete your Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. they are garbage.
> Under the principles of free speech, it’s more ambiguous.
I don't think it is. The First Amendment gives companies control of what gets posted to the sites they own. And it gives you that control for the sites you own, too.
> First Amendment gives companies control of what gets posted to the sites they own
No, it does not. It prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech.
The First Amendment is a particular expression of the broader principle of freedom of speech/expression [1]. If you are in my home and you express a view I dislike, it is completely within my legal rights to ask you to stop speaking or else be asked to leave. I could not at the same time, however, say I stand for free speech.
> that does not give companies and individuals the ability to choose what they host on their sites?
No, it does not. The First Amendment is silent on e.g. ISPs or payment processors blocking a particular site based on its content. Until 1897, it was unestablished whether it restricted the states in any form [1].
Ten people being denied their rights is no different from hundreds of millions?