Sometimes a company appears to hold itself neutral for a long time, and people get used to it and expect it to remain that way. When this suddenly changes, esp

Sometimes a company appears to hold itself neutral for a long time, and people get used to it and expect it to remain that way. When this suddenly changes, especially after the company has developed a dominant position in its niche, people tend to start complaining. Then some other people will often say, "Well, they never said they were neutral or that they upheld principles of free speech". Sometimes this is, upon further research, demonstrably wrong. In one case of this, one of the founders of Reddit, after some redditors complained about some admin intervention, said "Reddit was never meant to be a bastion of free speech". Some users then started collecting places where representatives of Reddit (including founders and CEOs) had said just that: https://www.reddit.com/r/BOFS https://www.reddit.com/r/BOFS In the case of Facebook specifically, I find a bunch of stories from just this July, with an example headline "Mark Zuckerberg stands up for free speech on Facebook, even for Holocaust deniers". Is it illegal to break implicit (or even explicit) promises to users? If money hasn't changed hands and there isn't any legal contract, then maybe not. (I've heard of laws about "common carrier" status, but don't know if that applies.) But users are quite within their rights to consider it a betrayal and to complain loudly.