So It sounds like you are conflating this with other platform discrimination issues, perhaps Twitter banning people after repeated misinformation (1) or banking

So It sounds like you are conflating this with other platform discrimination issues, perhaps Twitter banning people after repeated misinformation (1) or banking and infrastructure platforms banning N*zis (2) (it's important to note that banking platforms also often ban sex workers and the platforms they use). In the first case, that is banning people for actions that they take directly on their platform that goes against terms of service. Great, easy, we know that that a private business can set rules for their own platform. For the second, I think its reasonable that a company might be cautious allowing certain groups to actively fundraise and recruit if they demonstrate a direct harm to others (hate groups with militias). For this case of Doordash x Sex Workers, the case is a lot less defensible. If true, this would mean that Doordash is extending their terms of service to include off site activity. This does raise some red flags... but from case (2), we know that that can be defensible if A) that action hurts others and B) if the service used directly aids in those acts. A) Consensual Sex Work is not harmful, and the moral panic around it is probably more harmful than the act itself and B) Doordash does not directly aid in the operation of Sex Work... So yeah I think some outrage around this is warranted if it is true.