I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I don't think reddit as a whole is particularly conservative or liberal although most of its user base certainly is one or the other. Considering the way moderation works on reddit, it's also not very democratic, and you're absolutely correct in the sense that internet companies have always had the right to make points of view disappear from their sites. My judgement about "free speech" comes down to the question of "when is that socially acceptable?" If /r/news wants to ban the word "nigger" or "faggot" from its comments I think that would and should be considered socially acceptable; however, if they want to ban the words "Trans Pacific Partnership," I don't think that should be considered acceptable. Similarly, if Facebook wants to remove the profile of an "offensive racist," okay, I can see that being reasonable; but if Facebook does that to the profile of a protester because Facebook is receiving market access or capital from an authoritarian organization, I don't think that's right.

As it currently is, both those communities can act in either of those ways, but my point is that in each of those examples, one of the possibilities falls short in what we should expect from our universal human right to freedom of expression. How do you protect the latter, while minimizing the former? I do not ever want to "stand up for racism" but my fear of being labeled a racist will not stop me from speaking up for something fundamental like freedom of expression. I think it is important for communities to have tools to address and limit the detrimental effects of hateful speech, but at the same time, those tools need to be targeted and balanced so they are not abused or exploited for purposes beyond what they were intended.