> Trolling ... may not be against any law but it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content.
Is that really true? When Slashdot was the popular "news for nerds" site, many site regulars intentionally set their threshold to -1 to read the troll posts, because they were often inventive and funny. Yes, a moderation system can filter them out for users who configure the site thusly, but plenty of people would resist banning them outright because they are occasionally enjoyable to read.
> it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content
This is not always true, and that is the issue. If the government is going to, for instance, tell us we can't gather on public property, there has to be some way to guarantee that a digital commons will remain.
When the livelihood of those businesses depends entirely on their ability to track their users to deliver better ads, I would say that’s so much worse than letting conservative people express themselves freely.
This can, and IMHO should, be addressed the way HN does it (at least by default): content that's downvoted is not visible by default, but not actually removed.
This initiative may turn out to be the opposite of what it claims to stand for.