While I strongly disagree with social media censorship and I think a lot it is politically motivated, I do recognise that they probably should have the legal ri

While I strongly disagree with social media censorship and I think a lot it is politically motivated, I do recognise that they probably should have the legal right to censor content. Where I personally get far more uncomfortable is with the payment processors. When you have a companies like MasterCard banning donations from all republicans who take a certain political positions (objecting to the electoral vote in this case) then something needs to be done. If Twitter censors you it is possible to move to another platform, or even create your own, but if Visa and Master card ban you, what exactly do you do? To some extent I feel similar about core AWS services. I think people probably should have a some legal right to basic internet services. I understand it's possible to build your own internet infrastructure as Gab has proven, but it's very difficult for the average person to do what Gab did. As an individual I could move to another social media platform, but if my web hosts bans me I wouldn't have the resources to host my own website which seems wrong given how important the internet is to us as a utility today. IMO social media censorship, while an important conversation to have, isn't the primary conservation. This would be far less of an issue if alternative platforms like Gab and Parler weren't constantly under attack by monopolies which provide core services like payment processing and core internet services. The fact a company like Gab has had resort to accepting cash in the post for PRO membership for simply trying to protect its users right to free speech online is a complete failure of regulation IMO.