Following that, I'd say that the government (Texas, in your example) recognizes that social media is the new public square, and shouldn't allow censorship.

I can see the logic there. The courts banning them are (imo) in the wrong because of that, but there's a legal history there and I'm probably more pro free speech than most people here (I'm also probably more pro playing by the lefts rules and removing them from power by any means possible than most).

Going back to your example about the other people who aren't talking, I can't say I understand that point of view. If I was trying to agree with them in good faith, I'd try to be consistent with small government principles, and note that a bigger government is historically bad. And I agree with smaller government being generally better, but sometimes they need to act, so I can't actually support that pov.