(I had to break up my reply to get it to fit in the character limit)

Doesn't the first amendment literally prevent the government from regulating said viewpoints

Yes. But time and time again, courts have ruled that the first amendment protections of free speech end when you use them to harm others.

I fully support your right to advocate for cannibalism or murder (as long as its not directed at a particular person or group)

Aha! So you do have a line. You do think that some things are too far. You do think that we should follow the social contract, and that there's a point beyond which first amendment protections should not extend. You just think that line is when it could harm a specific group, not when it could cause general harm. So you recognize the need for the social contract, and you would even enforce it, you just think that the line is closer to the abyss than me.

That's [fearmongering and misinformation] called good marketing

No, it's called lying. And if you're lying, you're not a news organization and shouldn't be treated as one.

Fox doesn't have a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas

No, they just have an obscene amount of money, which gives them the ability to move the market to their own whims, and to cast people who express dissenting views as evil, or demonic, or monsters. And they have the trust of millions of people to whom they have lied and scared into believing them. They have inauthentically manipulated the market into becoming a monopoly for a certain subset of the population.

nobody in history has ever had a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas to acheive that u would need to drive out every single person or organization capable of independent thought, or just start censoring people what you are actively arguing for

Think about what you're saying and what conservatives are actually trying to do. They're manipulating the conversation to make it seem like every person or organization capable of independent thought is out to get the citizens of this society. They actively call for censorship of views or facts they don't like. They shut down stories at news outlets they own that would make conservatives look bad. They fire pundits who don't toe the line. They've got the power and the financial backing to be able to do all of the things you're talking about.

At the end of the day the social contract is just that a SOCIAL contract so in reality its not really a contract is it but a convention most people choose to obey.

...yes. A set of standards and mores that people have mutually agreed make society better. The reason that it's called a "contract" is that it's reciprocal: act in good faith and you are extended the benefits of having acted in good faith. Act in a way that seeks to cause harm, and you are no longer allowed to participate in society at the same level.

If it is beneficial to disregard it people will disregard it that's how evolution works.

We're sapient beings. We didn't have to live at the whims of evolution anymore. We can decide what we want to be. We can decide to shun people who want to harm others, and we can decide to uplift the oppressed.

its your choice what parts of the social construct you want to follow.

That's pretty much the definition of sociopathy: thinking that you get to decide how you interact with society, which values and mores you follow and which you don't.

Or it's narcissism, thinking that you know better than others how they want to be interacted with. I guess it could be either.

If you live strictly adhering to it then you are playing life at a disadvantage.

I'd much rather live at a disadvantage and be a part of a community than cutthroat my way to the lonely top of a pyramid that society might well decide needs to be dismantled.

Think about it this way your actions are being controlled by subjective contract that nobody else has to obey I would call that NPC behavior.

The stupid "NPC" thing again, eh? That's just inane "alpha-male" Andrew Tate drivel. Sounds like narcissism might actually be the right answer here, since you think you're the "player" and everyone else are just "NPCs" in the game that you're playing.

Throughout history, when humans advance and grow as a society, it's when we move beyond that brain-dead mindset and work together as a community to become something more. And every time we do, the person with the least power in the new structure has a better life than the person at the top of the old one.

Think about it. Early humans worked incessantly to get the sustenance to keep going and reproduce. Once they formed small farming communities, they were able to withstand bad weather and poor crop seasons, and suddenly they didn't have to work as hard; even the poorest farmer had a better life than the richest hunter/gatherer. Once the communities got larger, they were able to specialize, and some people didn't even have to specialize in hunting or farming; even the poorest artisan had a better life than the richest subsistence farmer. Once we developed cities and nation-states, we could decide to build infrastructure and even bigger works; even the poorest engineer had a better life than the richest craftsman in an agrarian context. Once we decided to democratize, we were able to focus on making life better for individuals; and then most people, even in the lower class, had a better life than the kings they dethroned.

We became modern humans by becoming social creatures.

So if you're going to keep on your free-market, Jordan Peterson/Ayn Rand tomfoolery, you might one day find yourself at the top of a dying civilization (though it's pretty unlikely, unless you happen to have been born very rich).

Or you could give up your adherence to the religion of the Free Market, and we could follow the proven track record of humans working together to do better things all the way to the stars.