But freedom of speech and expression can not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations
it doesn't apply to private companies.
Yes, I know these things.
In Semp's example, freedom of speech means also for private citizens and private organizations freedom from speech -- by which I mean not being forced into saying things, including on their property or on their equipment (such as private message boards). That's a good thing.
In Busher's example, there are things illegal to say, which are well known and non-controversial, such as not being able to slander people or incite violence against a person. Those also are good things.
My conversation was not about the legality of free speech or about free speech in general. It was about a specific conversation with Arlo, involving personal preference -- specifically Arlo saying he wouldn't ever view any link to something on Bit Chute.
I admire when private platforms promote freedom of speech as it is defined in the US legal framework. But they aren't required to do that, and my admiration does not extend to slander, inciting violence against a person, etc.
It's like if Arlo and I were having a conversation about vegetarianism, and I say, "I'm in favor of meat as part of one's diet." That doesn't mean I think the Constitution requires that everyone eat meat. That doesn't mean I think it is OK to murder and eat fellow humans.