Here's where I addressed those concerns
To extend the idea, I noticed you have a personal website linked in your bio, are you under moral obligation to allow other people to post hate speech to your website or allow anyone to post anything to your website? Do you feel you have complete control over the content posted to your website or does that make you some sort of moral censor and dictator of acceptable speech?
Edit: Your giving site may provide a better example, because presumably you feel you can pick a choose what charitable group(s) can join and receive funds through your platform, effectively limiting the speech of all the other programs you haven't allowed to join.
I think the issue specifically with the app store is that there are other players who could similarly violate the "hate speech" metric (telegram/whatsapp/twitter/etc), but Google doesn't take those down. That calls into question how consistent they are with their policing and what constitutes the "line."
The larger argument I was trying to get at in the other comment was that there seems to be a few companies that are aggregating power over "speech" online. At some point, they start to either look monopolistic (and using their base to prevent other players from growing - see fb v snapchat), or start to seem more similar to utility companies (which are regulated to some extent).
Should your electric company be able to shut you off because you attended a rally? Should your phone company be able to terminate your service? Maybe, maybe not, but the utility analogy seems apt (to me) for this scenario.
According to 1st amendment law, the remedy is to boycott the business, and truthfully it's the greatest tool people have to level the playing field, and it's seriously underleveraged especially in the internet age. However, the logic goes if you can't get the public to boycott a company, then your speech has basically failed in what's called the marketplace of ideas. So maybe while it's worth while to call attention to the power of these big companies and promote a boycott to keep them in check, you shouldn't be surprised when the boycott fails to gain momentum based them prohibiting hate speech, meaning find a clear cut example where they abused their power in a clearly controversial way where enough of the public will support the boycott to hurt the companies bottom line.
As to your last paragraph, denial of service is not always protected or even speech for that matter. Another famous Supreme Court Case is Ollie's BBQ which prohibited African Americans from eating there, and that was found to be unconstitutional under the commerce clause. The commerce clause is kind of a running joke in law that gives the Federal Government the right to regulate everything on the basis of effecting interstate commerce, and while I of course agree with the result of the case, I despise the logic and use of the commerce clause. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung
How do you boycott your power company? There aren't a lot of options...
(p.s. thanks for the civil discussion).
Before that look towards US Homestead Steel workers strike to protect unions and wages, that literally ended in a fire fight between 10,000 townspeople and the private security firm the Pinkertons. There were legal battles and boycotts, all of which failed.
So there is no guarantee you prevail and I don't mean to make real change sound easy, but we live in a different day and age, and I don't think you need to worry about Google hiring private security firms and actual fire fights, but who knows, could you imagine everyone in the US boycotting Google Search until they repatriated HQ to the US to pay normal corporate taxes and pay their back taxes? What would that look like, I have no idea but maybe just a single day of boycotting. And as unrealistic as that might sound, would it really be such a disturbance for everyone to collectively use bing or duckduckgo for a day to avoid Google? Compared to facing the Pinkertons or the hell people faced fighting for their civil rights, it seems pretty easy.
So its not just a matter of how, the how is easy if there is a good enough why that will prevail in the marketplace of ideas. Give workers a reason and they can strike, give consumers a reason and they can boycott. Such things make it untenable for the shareholders and they can elect a new board who can elect new corporate officers, if they continue to fight, make in untenable politically and they lose their support all the way around. Again in the internet age its easier than ever to organize, promote a message and hold people accountable...but that doesn't mean its easy.
I'm not trying to be snotty. I'm trying to explain what the "free speech" side of the argument is.
I'm not saying his is invalid, or that he didn't bring up point, but I'm stating why there is concern from those concerned with free speech and "de-platforming."
I don't think asking for a debate is "snotty" or "insufferable", but if I am, please let me know where I'm wrong :)
That comes across as snotty and insufferable.
You're welcome to join.