Modern liberal is generally fairly pro-censorship; pro-authoritarian. The word's definition has just flipped in recent years, so it means different things to different people.

That’s like 3 layers of assumption.

Google doesn’t want to eliminate its cash cow, and doesn’t want to be associated with crazy fringe people. It’s pretty simple really.

Running this stuff through a “liberal” or “conservative” lens isn’t productive. Big public companies care about making money and eliminating risks associated with doing so.

I think you underestimate the desire of people to conform, to push their political agenda through their work, etc.

Big companies aren't at risk from losing money for quashing unpopular speech - it's exactly why unpopular speech is the speech that generally needs protecting.

To a point.

I think being credited with empowering right wing nuts can blowback though.

That's narrative not reality. There's plenty of blowback but that's why it's important to protect unpopular speech. Its why the ADL argued the nazis should be able to march in milwaukee. Because when you create a mechanism to censor and restrict you have to know that it can be turned against any speech those in control find they don't like.

Are nazis marching near the homes of holocaust survivors disgusting? Sure. But there's a reason why it should be allowed if you and your children and their children are going to experience fundamental freedom instead of the arbitrary wishes of a government that may replace this one or the next one or the next one.

extrapolate from there.

I don’t need to - Google’s actions demonstrate it.

Google Drive is a private resource, not an avenue in Milwaukee. Google is not the government.

You have the freedom to speak, but not in a newspaper you don’t own. You have the freedom to assemble, but not in a privately owned shopping mall.

Sadly today we live on a world where the town square is digital but he government has failed to declare it common carrier. That is a failing of society and a reason just a few people can control the speech of billions.

You are technically correct based on current legal precedent but only because of the government's failure to regulate these companies not because it's inherently so.

If Milwaukee had been a company town they would still have been required to allow it, but because of weak politicians failing to ensure free speech is preserved we have arrived at a point where Mark Zuckerberg or Google's trust and safety team can arbitrarily ban speech for billions without any consequence or legal challenge.

Meanwhile just the other day the white House spokesperson was asking why if someone is banned on one platform they aren't banned on all of them automatically. If you don't see this dystopian future just over the hill you never will until it's too late.

To reframe, perhaps we live in a society where anyone who wants to can join the town square by putting up their own website, but almost everyone would much rather hang out in the hotel lobbies of Facebook, Google, and Twitter because the amenities are much nicer and those companies hand out free megaphones (in the form of interest-surfacing algorithms).