(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
What is the difference between the two instances, in your view?
The ability to have an account on a private platform such as Twitter, or attend a private party, or buy a cake from a bakery, is a luxury. For the government to mandate that private organizations or businesses must serve or host everyone would lead to a legal morass that isn't worth the potential benefit to the consumer or user - as I say, these things are luxuries. There are also, often, alternatives: people can set up their own social media platforms, buy from a different bakery, or host their own private party.
By contrast, employment isn't a luxury, and many people find it very difficult to get a job. It's also economically inefficient to refuse to hire someone competent on the basis of their race, gender, sexual orientation or political beliefs. This would harm the economy if it were practiced on a widespread basis. I suspect that the absence of Alex Jones on Twitter, by contrast, is either neutral or net-positive.
Again, this is not to say that I support the wanton removal of political figures from social media platforms. It is wrong for three reasons: firstly, it feeds into the "censorship" narrative that some are promulgating; secondly, it is not impossible to imagine that the tables might be turned in the years to come, and people who are advocating for good policies might be removed; third, we should all have some epistemic humility and expose ourselves to alternative viewpoints (though the evidence suggests that doing so on social media, a very heated environment, actually leads us to become entrenched in our beliefs, on average.)