Your analogy is flawed.

This site and those businesses are OPEN to the public, regardless of who owns them.

Sure it would be nice if there was no government nor regulations, but anarchy is a dream.

So we have the laws of the land, good, bad, and ugly. That means free speech technically should exist and discrimination is technically forbidden. Racist store owners cannot ban people and unless you shout fire in a crowded theater you can share your ideas. OPEN to public, privately owned or not.

I'm surprised you are taking this stance, the same but much bigger regarding the rights of government-funded Corporate Social Media to freely censor their monopoly platforms that are essentially the public square or commons.

There is virtually no lock on the door here, by choice, for anon users without any verification. A questionable choice IMO. Much different than the Corbett Report limited access forum for example, open yet private, requiring donations (or a special invitation for me) and email registration. Even more limited, my old site was just my own content with zero social media.