The following are not equal:

1) Google has decided that it does not want this content on their platform.

2) The totalitarian government has decided that nobody can access this content on any platform.

Let's be clear here, it's not that they don't want content on their platform: it's that content blatantly violates their rules.

Encouraging the harassment of families of school shooting victims is pretty heinous, and not something I'd want affiliated with my brand. I also wouldn't want my brand to become a platform for someone who perpetuates conspiracy theories that cause true believes to pick up weapons and become terrorists, simply because that's how he makes a buck.

After all, both Google and Twitter have spent close to a decade silencing religious extremists on their platforms. Where were the free speech advocates when fundamentalist Muslims were silenced on Twitter and couldn't use the platform to spread their message?

Yeah, I equated the two concepts: they created rules to specify what they do and don't want on their platform. Sorry if it came across as them deciding arbitrarily on the fly.

False equivalency as has been said and I don't use google anyways...