>This current situation is the start of the road to tyranny.
I'm not a historian, but I can't think of many examples where an evil regime gained power by slowly "boiling the frog" and gradually eroding free speech rights.
Communist dictators typically seized power in a violent revolution spurred on by deliberate misinformation campaigns.
Many of the Middle-Eastern dictators seized power in a not-so violent revolution (at least, not violent enough to cause a full-scale civil war) spurred on by deliberate misinformation campaigns.
The colonial powers maintained their grip on power by denying education to the natives, and when they left the dictators that took their place seized power by violence even in a Western legal framework.
Maybe the Nazis did this (I'm honestly not sure), and maybe Julius Caesar too? But this doesn't seem to be a set-in-stone, guaranteed way of seizing power.
These companies are choosing to repeat what people tell them. They should always be considerate when doing so.
Picking operators who's opinions align with yours is the liberal way, using the free market to pick which ideas get repeated
To be a good liberal, Google has to decide if it's a publisher or platform. IF it's a publisher, then the hateful content is coming from them and they must take editorial control of google docs and whatnot. If they're a platform provider, then they get the same protections as telephone network operators and others from the actions of their users.
This current situation is the start of the road to tyranny.