>That said, it's their service and their rules. Don't host data you care about on free services run by capricious multinationals. I 100% agree. Their service,

>That said, it's their service and their rules. Don't host data you care about on free services run by capricious multinationals. I 100% agree. Their service, their rules. However, these platforms have carved out special rules for themselves on the basis of neutrality - look at the DMCA Safe Harbor provision. They've portrayed themselves as neutral platforms that accommodate everyone who can follow the terms of service. However, they seem to either apply the TOS more rigorously to some groups than others - that's completely antithetical to the idea of a neutrality. In addition to saying "their service their rules" we should say "their service, their accountability". Strip them of the immunity they enjoy as platform providers and hold them accountable for all the content on their platforms - they curate the content, obviously everything that isn't banned or under review is content they support. Also, through the disparate impact standards this probably merits some equal accommodation scrutiny. I don't have all the information in front of me, but it looks like Google's censorship for American users seems to catch more socially conservative users than socially liberal users - that probably has a desperate impact across a few protected classes (age and religion come to mind). Now, I'm not saying that Google is guilty of refusing service to some protected classes. But I think their behavior merits some investigation to make sure that they're fulfilling their equal accommodation obligations like other American corporations.