On Thursday, Facebook decided it had had enough. It banned several accounts that it labeled as “dangerous” from its platforms. The prominent far-right or anti-Semitic figures booted from Facebook and Instagram included Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, and Paul Nehlen.

Although the move brought plenty of criticism, including from Donald Trump Jr., Facebook is a private company, and as such it can absolutely enforce its terms of service by banning people. That’s a right that self-described freedom advocates should support rather than attack.

Whether it be Big Tech companies like @Google/@Twitter /@facebook or Democrats in Congress like Nadler, it sure is interesting how quick the leftists are to shut down the speech of their opposition by censoring conservatives. https://t.co/6MnoEKCA9L — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) May 2, 2019

For Facebook and other social media platforms, there are plenty of reasons to ban certain content — even if it has a reputational cost to claims of neutrality or upholding freedom of expression.

The proliferation of violent and distasteful content likely does even more damage to their reputation while also driving users away and raising serious ethical issues for advertisers. In the aftermath of the livestreamed mosque shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, for example, Facebook faced criticism for not doing enough to quickly take down the video and pledged to do a better job of monitoring content.

Although that decision and the subsequent bans have clearly set off free speech alarm bells for some, those who might applaud government intervention should consider the alternative. Indeed, calls for government controls to regulate who should be allowed to post on a private-sector controlled platform are likely to be just as pernicious as those that try to restrict how a company manages its own platforms and enforces user agreements.

Facebook, wary of regulations of both types, is trying to navigate the fine line between the government on one side and its users and its shareholders on the other. For now that means a ban for some of the most egregious violators of the standards set by the company. That's not a perfect solution, but it is a decent compromise. Facebook, after all, is different from the traditional public square, even if it has become the centerpiece of the currently smoldering debate on free speech and social media.