Do you support the fundamental elements of a free democracy? If so, do you not think that the same principles by which we structure a society should apply to those organizations and individuals within the society? To put it another way, if a culture deems killing to be immoral, though not illegal, do you think an organization within this culture should be considered in good standing if it kills people? If not, you have a pretty substantial contradiction to explain.

Yes, most people know that organizations aren't forced to allow free speech under a legal definition. But, it's a pretty big element of western democratic culture that people are allowed to speak their minds, and when someone like Pao and/or the admins trample on that, they're trampling on the values that most people hold as being important for a functioning, free society. This effect is amplified when it happens to a platform that once was free, but then falls under despot-like command, with spontaneous censoring and mass-bannings. Imagine, for example, if your local park/mall/cultural centre suddenly privatized and started banning, let's say, gamers from entering. It's not illegal, and they have the rights to bar this group of people if they choose, but it shows a political position on their part that runs directly contrary to the values of the society they are a member of. It's bad citizenship, on a corporate level. Hence, all the comparisons to communist China; the admins' actions make people feel reminiscent of a totalitarian dictatorship, instead of the open culture they were used to, and so comparisons can't really be avoided.