Yeah, this move is very concerning to me. Moving forward, when any particular platform grows to the point where it becomes a candidate's primary means of being heard (the next Twitter/Facebook), those companies effectively gain the power to change the outcome of an election by censoring and demonizing that person, and doing the same to the people who support that candidate.

Imagine in the future if a company bans and demonizes a political opponent that they don't like because that candidate violated an arbitrary ToS - regardless of whether the candidate was right or wrong in violating those terms, due to the company's influence and reach, would it not, for all practical purposes, count as election interference?