I see this rebuttal all the time on HN and I'm not clear on if people realize it's a weak rebuttal or if they just don't care. So what if they're within their r

I see this rebuttal all the time on HN and I'm not clear on if people realize it's a weak rebuttal or if they just don't care. So what if they're within their rights? Does that remove the public's ability to object or invalidate their criticisms? We'be lived long enough to see the role of social media in the arab spring, the #metoo movent, and #blacklivesmatter. It's no longer a defense for companies, especially the Megacorps, to be legally within their rights. If people feel like private corporations are undermining the spirit of freedom of speech principles then they should be encouraged to organize and voice their feelings in the same way that we encourage any other group to. If the internet were invented fifty years earlier would it have been ethically acceptable if them to censor civil rights activists for associating with a movement which was frequently accused of inciting violence and causing maybe? Would it have been ethically defensible when they silenced the LGBT movement for advocating against'family values'? I constantly see criticism of companies who cooperate with the intelligence community here, even though that too is something within their rights by definition, and yet when the the freedom of expression crowd comes around they get tested like they also must be secret racists and bigots because for some reason no other explanation makes acceptable sense.