When a company has built tools for self-expression that are widely used, they have a responsibility to commit to broad principles under difficult circumstances. Free speech principles aren't as widely protected across the globe as they are in the US, but that doesn't mean they are not very important to the advancement of society.
You're being closed-minded if you're not willing to accept the possibility that they're right.
There's different forms of social control; it's multi-dimensional. In a top-down democracy with elected kings, it requires consistent struggle to improve things. We're very privileged, and unfortunately arrogant and militantly violent too. I mean, what are we doing in the middle east anyway, handing out flowers? Or killing people, breaking things and making sure we're their boss?
I never said that I didn't "accept the possibility that they're right". I just don't believe that an organization should be in charge of deciding what is "hateful" and what isn't. I happen to believe that free expression is critical to our moral and scientific growth as a species.
(Many of the less thoughtful and compassionate of these would look at American standards of public assistance, education, and criminal justice, hear you talk about "our moral and scientific growth as a species", and laugh in your face.)
Consider that they may be right and you may be wrong.
(The disagreement and dialogue in this conversation has been brought to you by Free Expression.)
Much to the contrary-- try having a conversation like this on a "free" forum like 4chan and see how far you get. This kind of respectful dialogue is brought to us by pervasive peer moderation and social opprobrium, with a dash of outright censorship to taste.