Inaction costs nothing, so I can't see why they would adopt censorship policies. I've been following the Facebook situation. To summarize, the April and July hearings and the May 1 shareholder meeting resulted in demands from 2 big shareholders to pressure FB to get strict with censorship, ensure 'fake news' and specifically Jones are deplatformed and MSM are always top of the feeds. FB hired thousands to do what the shareholders demanded.
July 25 they had a shareholder conference call and shareholders were told that the 4th quarter profits would be 20%. That's a decent profit for a mid-life company. The profit for previous quarter was double that, but because of the surveillance and censorship demands from the shareholders, hiring expenses would be up 60%.
Well, at about 3:30 one or more shareholders dumped stock, likely while still on the call. The cost was $120B to Zuckerberg!
So, the moral of the story is that censorship is expensive, while allowing free speech is FREE of cost for the platform. I'm sure Ottman knows it.