Because it's the right thing to do. Legally, they can do whatever the hell they want.

Facebook and newspapers are both private companies and are subject to the same law. They can't do whatever the hell they want. They can't publish slander, for example.

However it seems that limits to free speech are expressed differently for newspapers and Facebook.

I am still thinking about this.

Newspapers always have selected expressions. This is just because it is unfeasible to let everybody express themselves in a newspaper. It is a lot of work to print someone's free speech, so the newspaper has to select. This is not limiting someone's free speech.

And for social media companies the barrier to let someone express themselves is a lot lower. As a society we are still figuring out what this means for free speech.

Five hundred years ago with the print press the balance shifted, too. Monarchs in Germany were ousted. Society learnt to appreciate the freedom of the print press and to draw lines in the sand with slander and libel. We need to find out the rights, obligations and prohibitions concerning social media.

It's a process. It needs time.

I think, a novel concept will be that society's trust in information is a worth needing protection. It's similar to the concept that public health is also something that needs protection. This means: five hundred years ago with printing presses people learnt to extend protection from insults to newspapers. A few hundred years later protection of personal integrity from slander is part of Human Rights.

And now this seems to be repeating with society's trust in information.

The problem with that, as always, and one of the main reasons why there are rarely details about bans like these, is fake/illicit/malicious accounts. If someone with a Facebook bot farm gets detailed reasons for the ban of his bots, he can improve them next time around based on the newly gathered information about banning and rules.

Because if they don't, they will rack up really bad reputation for crushing people wantonly and acting as judge, jury and executioner over their livelihoods, without even giving a clear idea what constitutes a fatal offence.

Next phase, antitrust trials.

with dems in control of the federal government, why would there be antitrust trials for banning right wingers?

There are already antitrust proceedings running, they generally take years from start to finish (the old antitrust Microsoft case took 8 years IIRC), a lot can happen in the meantime.

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/16/947160910/the-case-against-fa...

If they don't it'll just add to the duopoly break up argument.

It's also easy to be be complacent when it's not our views under attack, but all you need is the thought exercise of how this will be abused when the other side takes power.