I think that's a dodge. It implies that there is something inherently different between government power and other forms of power. And yes, there are subtle dif

I think that's a dodge. It implies that there is something inherently different between government power and other forms of power. And yes, there are subtle differences, like use of force, but at the end of the day, power is power. To be clear, I don't think Microsoft has done anything wrong here, but I don't think free market economics is the right angle to take. Imagine if it were Facebook or Twitter instead of just a video game. You could apply the same logic to say that Facebook is just a private company, and what they allow on their platform doesn't qualify as a curb on free speech. But those two companies effectively form an oligopoly on on-line discussion, and what they allow on their platforms has a huge effect on the country as a whole. Because their policies end up dictating what people are and aren't allowed to say on the internet, their moderation strategies should absolutely be held to a higher standard. None of this applies to Turn 10, because a racing game is not intended as a platform for discussion, but that's a nuance that needs to be considered. The blanket statement, "private companies should do whatever is good for their business" does not capture that.