Nice strawman there. No one is compelling speech. Compelling speech means I am required to say something (you know, like when various interest groups say that you must publicly support them or they will doxx and destroy you and your business) I would not normally say. We are talking about intentionally hiding, deleting, or banning ideas that the corporation dislikes. If the corporation's platforms are providing a public platform, then they are allowing public speech, not compelling it. This is the basis of the safe harbor protections internet websites enjoy. By not publishing, endorsing, or restricting speech beyond what is illegal in their jurisdiction, they are granted immunity for what others post on their platforms. Once they start to decide what speech is allowable, they have become publishers, by choosing which ideas they publish. It's not hard. The fact that you have to work really hard to try and conflate forced speech with viewpoint neutrality just shows that even you know your point is bogus. No one is demanding youtube announce that Cyberpunk 2077 is a glitch-ridden mess. They're just demanding that youtube allow others to make such a statement on their supposedly public (which is what they claim themselves in order to maintain safe harbor) platform.