I still don't understand your logic.

Here is your argument: "What comes next? Can the Government force the NYT to publish a pro life editorial?"

Then we note that the government can force General Mills to say how much sugar is in Honey Nut Cheerios. What comes next? Can the government force General Mills to compare Honey Nut Cheerios to Kellogg's Frosted Flakes? Can they force General Mills to publish a kid-targeted January 6 Was Just a Little Protest information graphic on their box?

Why not?

Maybe it's because slippery slopes are potentially a fallacy.

So, again, why do you keep raising the spectre of forcing this company to do that, when right now the Congress is using their soft power to make tech companies enact codes of conduct and crack down on misinformation? Isn't the baby already dead in the other direction? And without a proper discussion about the value of free speech to society generally, not just the value in not having it curtailed specifically by government.

Representative Mike Doyle told Zuckerberg, ""You can take this content down. You choose not to. But time after time you are picking engagement and profit over the health and safety of your users. It seems like you just shrug off billion-dollar fines."

How is that not the government threatening Facebook with billions of dollars of fines at a minimum unless they more greatly curtail speech?

You might be able to argue that cracking down on misinformation is the right thing to do, but trying to cast it as a pro-free speech issue liberating companies from the clutches of government just baffles me.