You're replying to a post about content networks lacking a legal framework to operate under, by complaining that hate content is currently poorly defined and content networks can do whatever they choose.
Your argument may have merit, or not, but odd place to make it regardless.
> The whole "they're a private company, they can do anything!" argument is growing weaker by the day as these companies have more influence in our lives (with both good (e.g. anti-hate content) and bad (e.g. copyright holders stepping on small creators) consequences).
I think it's fair to mention that censoring hate speech can indeed be a gray area. For example, there are cases were atheists that were formerly muslims speak out against their former religion, and are subsequently branded (by some, not all) as engaging in hate speech.