If the government regulates it, the government will decide what companies will have to allow on their networks. Just like it currently defines what is and is not speech, press, assembly, petition, etc. in regards to what is seemingly the absolutist language in the First Amendment.
We can disagree or not on what things should be protected under those clauses but I don't think anyone would deny we're not deciding what does and does not fall under them and to usually simplify under a single clause what is and is not speech that can be legislated against.
If they're treated as utilities they'll have to abide by the same free speech laws the government does. These corporations are also regulated regarding child porn, threats of violence against politicians and so on, should the government remove these regulations too or are you only concerned about the specific ones that encourage free speech? Also are you for or against net neutrality?
Thanks for repeating what I said back and then posing a signaling question instead of a response. Those corporations are currently exempted regarding those things as long as they aren't producing it btw.
In any case, it doesn't matter, the government currently can impose time and place restrictions, you aren't entitled to use a government facility to host your events at any time you wish for example, they can require you to get prior approval, only have it at certain times and pay for the privilege. Regulating as utilities doesn't get around this, I'm required to pay for access to electricity, they can cut my access within certain restrictions, etc.
A government owned Facebook or Google would absolutely be able to impose speech/press restrictions on them under current law. What's far more difficult for the government to do is impose them on private entities.
