I think anyone so “banned” by the Deep State Social Media Crony Corporations has good grounds to sue.
We are told that the “bannings” were not unlawful censorship since the banning entities are all private companies, not subject to the First Amendment’s injunction, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…”
The First Point of Law to note is that the Supreme Court has applied the language of the First Amendment to not just Acts of Congress, but to any actions of the Federal Government, and, through the 14th Amendment, to the States as well.
The Second Point of Law to note is that Internet Access is protected under the First Amendment. In the 2017 case of Packingham v North Carolina the Supreme Court held that “a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak…”
The Third Point of Law to note is that the 14th Amendment provides that States may not make or enforce any law that abridges the rights of US citizens. This includes, of course, the granting of the corporate franchise to private companies such that they may act in violation of our Fundamental Rights.
The Internet was initially established by the US Government and remains a “public utility,” although used by private persons to communicate and by publicly registered and traded companies to profit from our communications.
Our Freedom of Speech is under a world wide web of attack.
While various authoritarian states make no effort to hide direct censorship of speech, the “advanced democracies” are more subtle. Germany, with no absolute constitutional protection for Free Speech, is contemplating empowering Internet Service Providers to refuse service to “hate groups.” At the same time the large international corporate controllers of the Internet, such as YouTube, Facebook and Google, are already escalating content controls to enforce “political correctness” – if you don’t follow the Party Line, you cannot be heard.
First they came for the Neo-Nazis and banned them from Facebook. No one protested.
Then they came for Alex Jones and banned him from YouTube and Facebook. No one protested.
Then they came for… You know the rest… they came for you and me, and no one was left to protest.
These supposed private Social Media Companies are actually exercising government authority. Just as much as if they had been the “private” Tax Farmers of Ancient Rome.
They are the privatized agents of Deep State control and censorship. They exercise this control on several levels. Each of these mega-corporations is, in fact and in law, “a creature of the state.” It is created by registration with government that gives it authorities (such as limited liability to third parties) which it could not exercise as a truly private association.
If the same Rule of Law that applies to truly private actors applied to government and its crony corporations, “content control” efforts would be understood to be exactly what they are: censorship. Real free market competition and technological progress would rapidly make the near-monopoly power of Google and Facebook irrelevant. If the same Rule of Law that ought to apply to Government Censorship – that there can be no such law – applied to the crony corporations, YouTube, Facebook etc., “private” censorship could not remain.
 “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” – 14th Amendment
 “Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states—a process known as incorporation—through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 Ibid. “In Packingham v.North Carolina (2017), the Supreme Court held that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing various websites impermissibly restricted lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Court held that ‘a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more.’”