So we are back to personal responsibility and vigilance, instead of trusting a free content host not to enforce its terms of service?
Yawn. It's not censorship, you're playing in their yard, and you are free to start a competitor if it seems like they overstep.
This. Your right to free speech ends at my property line. You cannot come into my house and force me to listen to your speech. The censorship zealots have strange ideas about what "free speech" even means.
It doesn't mean that you are allowed so say whatever you want to say, but others are not allowed to react.
It doesn't mean that you are allowed to threaten death or injury to people.
It doesn't mean that you can take over a venue as your own - imagine Sport's Illustrated being forced by some fringe group to fill their pages with jihadist yammering, or political crap.
It doesn't mean that you must be provided with a vehicle for your speech.
It only means that the government cannot arrest you for expressing yourself in a civil manner. That is all.
I had to open a Facebook page as part of a project I am working on. And there is a problem. Outside of my groups, which are protected realms catering to specific things, its an unholy mess. A tragedy of the commons where you see two opposite articles beside each other, and neither true. Often both claiming censorship - oddly enough, you can see both lies, claiming that their lie is being suppressed.
So while yes, its all possible to block content. As I noted in an earlier post about the tragedy of the commons and the destruction of Usenet, eventually people just drift away because the bullshit to content ratio is simply not worth the effort. Which kills the goose.
Meanwhile I have a thriving little technical community, where people don't have to deal with politics, or religion. People are free to express themselves any way they want to. Just not in the group, where the rules are well known.