Some thoughts on the issue,
The idea of a company using its position, especially where they have some market mover or technological advantage, to screw over their competetors in a monopolistic means has been heavily assailed by the courts going back over 100 years. This muh free markets crap where techies think they can use their terms of service to push out competitors is going to hit a major court case sooner or later and none of it is virgin ground.
Roosh, if you can get the legal support consider this, you have standing to sue. If nothing else discovery of how amazon pulls people off or shadowbans them should be interesting in any anti-trust suit. Unlike a conventional book store where placing a physical item on the shelves is expensive, the beauty of amazon is that its dirt cheap to sell an item with a limited distribution. Given how many items they sell, which are both politically charged and at one point would've been considered obscene outright, how does Amazon use its monopoly position and does it practice illigal discrimination?
In the last 10 years the sphere of public discourse has moved past the 50% point to online. As such any platform which is big enough can be considered a public space. The idea of corporations banning perfectly legal excercise of first amendment rights in a public space, even though they might own it, has been struck down repeatedly over the last 60 (probably more years).
In marsh vs alabama the court ruled that distrubution of religious material is legal on a street, even though the company owned the town, as it was a public space free for anyone to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
How is a company owned online public space any different?
I don't have the time to pull all this together right now, but ATT has had piles of anti-trust measures against it over the years showing how
a technological monopoly is not absolute and courts have repeatedly forced ATT to open up. No one over the years of the telephone, telegraph would've thought that it would be legal for a company to deny communications services to someone based on their religious or political affiliation. Similarly I believe the post office is forbidden from denying service based on such things (obscenity is another matter and has been thoroughly debated though).
So given this why are the tech giants free to violate 100 years of case law, the internet space is public space and all protections against monopolistic denial of civil rights must apply to them as well.
Go forth and use your new found standing in the courts.......
ETA - the comparison between roosh's work and that of other, err contriverisal authors, raises the question of equal protection under the law. What can a monopoly discrmintate against and who's the judge?