As for "abhorrent views", I'm of two minds. Many of those "abhorrent views" are themselves calls to commit censorship. I don't think political speech calling for censorship should be protected by the 1st Amendment, because of the chilling effects that speech causes, even if the law itself would be immediately invalidated by SCOTUS. On the other hand, having private actors make the final call on what speech is permissible is also wrong, because we have no judicial recourse should they make a mistake. But there's also a lot of very impermissible conduct - i.e. doxing, spam, etc - that should be illegal, isn't illegal, but is only held at bay because of intermediaries having unlimited censorship power over their own platforms. From the perspective of a court, bringing these platforms into the scope of the 1st Amendment would be a net negative.
That's not borrowing from the gov. and it's not even most banks though.