"We’re taking down these Pages, Groups and accounts based on their behavior, not the content they posted."
Hmm...
Hmm...
I miss the time when there was a massive debate over the legality of removing the video Innocence of Muslims, to the extent there were op-eds suggesting that Youtube pursue an advisory opinion before removing it. Now it is all but certain that FAANG has the right to remove whatever, without question, without appeal.
And in most EULAs, certain categories of dispute go to arbitration.
Is there anywhere in there that you think a line should be drawn?
People are autonomic agents, yes. People share opinions, yes. Governments are comprised of people, yes.
The line was quite eloquently drawn during World War One when it was illegal to protest the draft. Or the Civil War.
There is no real answer to the question of whether is this immoral or moral, and thus I must voice my opinions.
Whether or not you like that is obviously a different story.
The loud ones used to be the ones against censorship, now the loud ones are the ones for censorship. The pendulum swings again.
I would be for censorship as well, if successful libel suits against publications meant they would be removed from the internet for fake news. Sadly egregious errors in editorial judgment are to be protected over someone saying an incomplete set of truths that result in an erroneous conclusion.
This also defines well online outrage mobs. But I doubt they would crack down on them.
So it is doing content policing, as long as that content is sufficiently outside the Overton window.
It is about evading being subject to responsibility for the content on their site -- they want to be regulated as 'nuetral' content carriers, not editors.