> from claiming ad hominem attacks are as bad as racism, to ranting about millenials and throwing in WMD's in Iraq for good measure.

You simply cherry picked the part you didn't like, didn't explain how it was invalid, and then extended this to the rest of the author's points.

That's a fallacy fallacy:

"You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong."
(https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy)

> It's a private company determining how and who it conducts business with

Maybe if you're talking to a pure Libertarian or Ancap that would make for a good rebutal, however in reality there are many laws constraining private companies about "how and who it conducts with". And there are laws to stop the abuse of dominant market position even if that position was acquired fairly; this is what Microsoft got hit with years ago. This is what has allowed the other tech giants to rise in the first place.

> and if you don't like Mailchimp's content policies, go to a competitor.

Except this has now become nearly impossible given that the companies who control the vast majority of the Internet Infrastructure and other services related to payment processing and ads often coordinate to ban what they deem to be bad actors and all those who collaborate with them.

> Unless someone explains to me, in plain English, why we ought to abolish the very important freedom of deciding for themselves who and how private entities do business with, I don't want to read any essay length pieces any more about the Gulag archipelago, Orwell or how his friend being cancelled by Mailchimp is like being stuck in Soviet Russia.
And to preempt the inevitable "but they're so large!". This is not an indicator of anything. Tech companies are large yes, but competitors are, as Google actually correctly put it at one point, one click away. Size is not an indicator of market power, inability to chose alternatives is.

Because they have become public utilities by virtue of being natural monopolies and being essential to the working of society.

Nobody will use the next best search engine, especially when barely no software or OS defaults to a non-Google search Engine.
Nobody will use the 2nd popular social network to talk with their close ones.
Nobody can start a bunch of those: virtual market / delivery system / hosting service / music streaming / video streaming / audio library and uses the synergy to make it the cheapest and undercut all competitors.
Social medias are the most up to date and accessible way of reaching and being reached by government officials, making them essential to the functioning of society.
And personally, and I think this is the case for the majority of people, if I get banned from using my Google account(s) then I lose access to all my accounts, including goverment websites, payment processors, utilities accounts, my phone and if I have a business I can't advertise it properly. Others will also stop doing business with me so they also do not get ban. The idea that "you can just chose another competitor one click away" is simply not doable for 99% of people without any kind of fuckyou money in the bank.

> Size is not an indicator of market power, inability to chose alternatives is.

Please provide examples big companies with very little market power.