I just often see these kinds of stories turn into discussions about "free speech", and I'm trying to head that off.
I have a right (in the USA) to say whatever I want (barring clear and present danger). I don't have the right to compel anyone to help me say it. I have the right to print leaflets, but not the right to use your printer.
People sometimes act as though they are entitled to use Google's or Facebook's service as they see fit. I'm saying they have a right to complain (which may change things) and a right to leave, but not a right to control what isn't theirs.
Issues like this puncture our illusions about what these sites are and are not. They are useful. They are not ours.
But maybe nobody here needed to hear that.
Of course you do. You also have habeas corpus, human rights, legal certainty, a constitution, separation of church and state, a functioning healthcare system, and other such wonderful notions of Western civilisation.
Must be. Says right here in the USA™ Terms that you can't claim otherwise and if you don't pretend hard enough, the upside-down people will come and take away your Values in the night, like they did with Curly.
Google and Facebook are going to have to be careful, otherwise their sites and services are going to get really popular and they'll be treated as a public space, in the same way that malls are public spaces and have to allow free speech.
The point of the article is to say "Google+ is a jerk" and to mock their attempts at censorship (and vague criteria such as 'offensive gestures' which, as the author noted, are culture-dependent). Whether this sparks enough community-rage for Google to change because they want to preserve their consumers, we'll see. (Probably not.)