I voted "yes, with caveats". The caveat is that my agreement is based on my understanding that these bans are justified because of terms of service (TOS) violat

I voted "yes, with caveats". The caveat is that my agreement is based on my understanding that these bans are justified because of terms of service (TOS) violations. I'm pretty sure that Google Play, for example, has banned other apps in the past because of issues with "user-generated content" that was not sufficiently moderated. If tech firms are enforcing TOS and doing it in an even-handed way, then I'm OK with that. Freedom of speech is important, big companies with lots of power also have lots of responsibility, but I think they should still be able to have TOS. Whether it's truly even-handed is an important question. Even if a TOS agreement is written objectively, it's possible enforce it selectively. Personally, I don't see any clear sign that it isn't even-handed. Given the timing, it's obviously reactive, but that seems OK to me because there is new information to consider, and the app took on greater importance, so it's natural to look more closely at it (among all the many apps out there).