I could also ask why companies would risk reputation loss for hosting 'reprehensible' or 'abhorrent' content. Your comment also illustrates the confusing notio

I could also ask why companies would risk reputation loss for hosting 'reprehensible' or 'abhorrent' content. Your comment also illustrates the confusing notion that a restrictive editorial policy is 'censorship'. The term 'censorship' was once reserved for government restrictions but now is unfortunately wielded as a weapon against the editorial policies of private entities. By neutering the term it makes it much more difficult to talk with clarity about the two different concepts. Government censorship is much more problematic. Obviously the marketplace ultimately decides if a private entity is making wise editorial decisions. Public discussion of those policies is reasonable but that discussion can't be founded on the unqualified notion that 'censorship' is bad otherwise there would be no room for editorial decisions at all -- which is an absurd outcome.