If this upsets you, then you probably shouldn't use the "it's a private company" defense when people are upset by other instances of Big Tech being guilty of censorship.
I'm not sure you understand the difference between "Big Tech company using censorship to prevent their underpaid and overworked employees taking collective action" and "Big Tech company using censorship to avoid legal liability after yet another dumb fuck who hung out on their platform with like minded dumb fucks decides to shoot up a mosque/school/night club/music festival, and live streams it on Big Tech's platform".
Suffice to say, there's a significant difference, and trying to conflate the two implies either innocent ignorance or deliberate dishonesty.
I'm going to assume it's the former, because I've always taken Napoleon's alleged aphorism to heart - the one about "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance".
Agreed, although it seems a pretty blatant violation of the first amendment that government can tell a business owner what speech they must allow on their private property.
