They do get upset. In fact, both Google's and EFF's responses are results of people getting upset. There's people upset that Nazi imagery exists, and Google wan

They do get upset. In fact, both Google's and EFF's responses are results of people getting upset. There's people upset that Nazi imagery exists, and Google wants those people as customers, so they have made the decision to ban Nazi imagery. There's people upset that this ban is overbroad and poorly applied, and that it sets a dangerous precedent, and the EFF is voicing that fear. Youtube, Facebook, etc ban pornographic content due to social pressure. Google did not arbitrarily decide to ban Nazi speech on its whim, with no social support. This is a social war and it's why I find all the arguments unpersuasive - "private companies should do what they want"(except in cases when we don't like it, e.g. employment laws, denying service to minorities..) or "private companies should be forced to do what we want"(what happened to freedom of association?). The underlying issue is that we're split on the importance and effects of tolerating hateful speech. The private companies are trying to navigate the social climate, which has become increasingly polarized. Boycotts, "with us or against us" demands is what is forcing their hand. It's not Google that's evil in this case, it's us. We are forcing them to take a stand on this social rift, and they have, and no one should really be surprised by it. Freedom of speech advocates have a long history of losing to moral panic.