Probably not, which is why I keep trying to talk about principles, and keep getting frustrating by you returning to laws. You've done it again: ignored my parallel slippery slope argument by appeal to law and the SCOTUS right now, not by appeal to principle.

And you clearly recognize the immense power of corporations over people, and yet want to preserve every possible right for them when it comes to restricting users' speech e.g. in reaction to threats from Congress (seriously--if you're so into laws how do you not know how much latitude Congress has to make life hell for Facebook? Like Section 230 of the CDA? See https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/10/17208322/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-congress-testimony-regulation), but no willingness to even consider the merits of regulations for allowing users' speech.

I'm not sure there's any point continuing the conversation, honestly. When any concern over free speech is met with derision ("Soft power...gee, that sounds scary") as long as you think it's going the way you like right now, when every parallel is stretched beyond the legal or logical breaking point ("Can the Government force the NYT to publish a pro life editorial?"--NYT is a publisher and Facebook is potentially not, how is that not plain?!), when there are almost never any principled statements and those that do come up point the opposite direction to what you're saying (free speech baby is somehow not mutilated by threatening Facebook unless it curtails free speech, but is mutilated by asking anyone to promote free speech), we can't make any progress on the central issue.

If you wanted to have an interesting and related discussion, it would be about what the distinction should be between a publisher and a carrier or library--do content recommendation algorithms automatically make you a publisher? We already have a robust distinction between publishers, who take responsibility (to an extent) for their work, and carriers who do not (but also, generally, do not heavily police it). That touches on law and SCOTUS rulings and other things you seem to show an affinity for. But even that is not itself the central issue.

The central issue is: does free speech have benefits for a free society that go beyond what is in the First Amendment?

You say you think so, yet you act like you think not. Indeed, you say you support the First Amendment, yet act unconcerned about the government circumventing First Amendment protections! Actions speak louder than words.