The issue is the means of enforcement requires taking away other rights they shouldn't be able to.

What if I want to require (for anti-piracy reasons) that to use my software you must also give me complete access to your computer, all the data on it, and all your communications. You might say, "Well, if anyone is stupid enough to make that deal, let them." But it's easy to sugar coat what you're doing, especially with less technical users. I think it's better to say, "That's just not something you are allowed to do. It's trampling on rights more important than your anti-piracy rights."

In the same way, you cannot murder someone even if they agree to be murdered (an actual case in Germany).

Because it's bad for consumers to lose choices, even if they don't normally exercise those choices. The choice is the distributed power we have against the consolidated corporate power. We can choose not to let them restrict those choices, for example with interoperability regulations.

>why shouldn’t Netflix have the right to choose who they distribute content to?

power asymmetry

For Netflix sure. I don't care. But when it comes to banking and you are forced to use between two OS or this means no access to your bank digitally, this is a massive problem and restriction to citizens' freedom. Everyone needs a bank to operate, and they need to maximize the options available to use them.

It's sort of antitrust adjacent. They are big enough to set market rules on the manner of distribution, like DRM and hardware-software lock-in, which doesn't directly stifle competition in their field (only a little) but in another field, and the results are arguably anti-consumer. That sort of power should not be in the hands of a single company.

A non libertarian might ask: Is it good for society?