First of all, unless you're a free speech absolutist (who believes that literally nothing supercedes free speech) then recognize and accept that someone, somewhere has to draw a line across a continuum of grey.

So we're already in the morass, whether you like it or not. You're right to worry about this question:

> But then, who decides what's bad?

But in this case, it's Patreon, trying to look out for its own best business interests. It's almost ideal. Since this is their core business they are pretty strongly incentivized to be liberal about what they allow.

You can imagine some kind of net neutrality regulation, but please realize that for it to have any effect it must be enforced. So we're talking about regulators, investigators, rulings, fines, appeals, legal defenses, etc., along with the attendant politics, of course, not to mention, soon you'll have entrenched interests to bog down any reforms or improvements to the system. Maybe as a left-leaning socialist you will be happy to hear about all this but just note that it doesn't resolve the fundamental issue. In the end, there's still a mixture of policy, enforcement, process and precedent deciding what's OK and what's not. Passing a law doesn't solve this issue, it just moves it around and probably makes it more complicated.

> The societal norms are shifting to a place where there are certain topics that are not allowed to be discussed at all

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Anyway, this case seems to be about vigorous use of the n-word and homophobic slurs, which certainly can be discussed (and, unfortunately, are well accepted and encouraged in certain circles).

Also, keep in mind: moving the line of what is acceptable (whether to something more liberal or more conservative) doesn't change the situation at all. There are people who will test the line, wherever you draw it. In fact, for many, that's the point. They get attention (in their own circles) by testing the line and it's not bad to sometimes get banned as a result.