My point is, this argument that "they're a private company" is great, and I 100% agree with it. But I usually find that people that make this argument don't actually believe that these companies have the right to their private property, they just use it because they're ideologically opposed to the people getting banned for whatever reason. They'll say that a private company has the right to it's property and then in the next breath call them evil for having a lot of property and demand that they get taxed out of existence.

You can consistently hold both views.

If the rules of property mean I have certain rights.

But I don’t like the rules of property, and I want them to change.

You can if you want, but if you don't believe corporations should have a right to their property, tossing "they have a right to ban you from speaking" in someone's face is a bit disingenuous.

And also, counterproductive. If you'd like to change the rules, perhaps defending them every time they're used to hurt your ideological opponents is not the way to do that. Maybe it would be more effective to agree with them and help them.

I don’t have any ideological opponents... I’m pretty happy to be convinced either way on most issues. But colour me unconvinced on this one.

They aren’t banning you from speaking, just stopping you from doing it in their house, you can continue your message everywhere else.

This meta discussion about the actual point feels awkward. Is the alternative you are suggesting that you have to accept whatever anyone says always? Is it more nuanced than that?