This is just what these far right overgrown toddlers do. They literally are not capable of understanding anything that isn't about them.

I'd argue that there are cases when people's access to a service should be legally upheld.

Say, you bought an iPhone, Apple Watch, the whole Apple entourage. Then your account gets flagged and blocked for something stupid - and bam, the hardware you just spent a few thousand dollars on is unusable, any apps/services you bought via the Apple account are inaccessible, you lost your notes, contacts, emails, cloud storage, and so on.

With Google or Samsung it's slightly less problematic as you don't HAVE to use their service accounts to use your hardware. But it is an outstanding issue where these companies have become de facto monopolies in certain market segments and can't be avoided to deal with - and it's up to their whims if you get to use certain services.

There's been actually a number of instances where this kind of issue landed near me. I'm an android engineer and had TWO previous employers who's got their Play Store accounts suspended because a developer that worked in relation with those accounts 5-7-10 years ago, ended up having their account hacked then promptly suspended once it was used for fraud - and the employer's account was "an associated account" thus it got the suspension too.

There's very little oversight over the operation of these companies, again, they do as they wish, if a slightly higher-up manager has a personal beef with you, you can find yourself banned from their services, causing financial and professional damage and so on. So no, I disagree, at times, companies do need to be legally forced to provide their services.

Mind you, the Taint case is not such a time.

Tate's just another example of what the rightwing mean by "free speech"-- they mean forced platforming for them, and suppression of anyone disagreeing.

In the EU, the DSA gives people pretty extensive rights to challenge such bans (and other moderation decisions), but only if the platform is sufficiently large.

It's much more complicated than that. Social media platforms have a TOS that binds them just as much as the user. It's literally just a contract.

The social media company also has much more limited rights to terminate such a contract than the user. At least that's the case in countries with any consumer protection.

That's how YouTubers at least in Germany have successfully forced YouTube to reinstate their channel. YouTube failed to prove a violation of their TOS, therefore the contract termination was null and void, therefore the contract is still valid.

There is no contract when you have entered a restaurant. After you ordered your food, there is a contract and you cannot be kicked out for arbitrary reasons anymore. If you are kicked out for no reason, you can sue for damages (but you cannot force the restaurant to enter any new contracts with you, e.g. another meal).