So they've got a (haphazard, ham-fisted, obscure) mechanism for removing stuff they consider undesirable. It costs them money, but they hope the balance is positive by keeping their reputation up.
That mechanism has both false positives and false negatives (as well as being flagrantly subjective), because it's far, far, far too much for them to examine each case closely. It may be your lifeline, but to them it's just another $10e2 in a $10e11 revenue stream.
The effects do not always have to be immediate, Google once got caught reducing its labor pool by agreeing not to hire from the competition. At first glance you would think that less workers would result in higher wages when it actually fucked over the workers a dozen times harder because they could no longer get alternative jobs in the area.
Also, FWIW, I have found that it doesn't usually go over well to compare my non-civil rights struggle with civil rights struggles. It just . . . you know, it implies a level of injustice that simply isn't supportable and it doesn't come off right. Just my 2c.