[TheCaptain4815]

I hope the government regulations don’t just end at stopping the merger, but also disallowing these financial institutes from banning users for speech they deem harmful. Actual illegal use, sure, but im not sure how or why it’s legal for them to ban and remove banking abilities from someone for their political views no matter how “abhorrent”.

[kmeisthax]

It's legal because the 1st Amendment is narrowly drafted to the point of uselessness. Censorship is only the result of actions by the sovereign - i.e. the local legitimate violence monopoly. Any other kind of monopoly? Sorry, that's actually just their freedom of association. And, ironically, their own freedom of speech: Comcast argued in front of courts that any sort of common carrier regulation on Internet traffic would be censoring Comcast.

As for "abhorrent views", I'm of two minds. Many of those "abhorrent views" are themselves calls to commit censorship. I don't think political speech calling for censorship should be protected by the 1st Amendment, because of the chilling effects that speech causes, even if the law itself would be immediately invalidated by SCOTUS. On the other hand, having private actors make the final call on what speech is permissible is also wrong, because we have no judicial recourse should they make a mistake. But there's also a lot of very impermissible conduct - i.e. doxing, spam, etc - that should be illegal, isn't illegal, but is only held at bay because of intermediaries having unlimited censorship power over their own platforms. From the perspective of a court, bringing these platforms into the scope of the 1st Amendment would be a net negative.

[TheCaptain4815]

Well because these banks can only function from the money they borrow from the government, it’s insane they’re allowed to censor 1st amendment protected speech.