Any attempt to create legislation and policy to truly protect people must also maintain respect for free will. Companies may have legal obligation to remove content to prevent crime in cases where they themselves are liable as publishers, but the legislation has not described them as publishers traditionally - they are 'carriers'. The publisher is the author of the material or whomever uploads it to the network - so technically, the carrier has obligation to make investigation of the publisher viable and to respond to court demands if that's what they agree to do in general.

Generally, this is a given - since this is fairly clear in law in many jurisdictions. However, inevitably, the platform gets caught in the middle of oppressive politicians and expressive populations. In my opinion, they should be fully transparent and publish all examples of material being taken offline and the court cases involved in all regions - just like courts announce cases publicly. This way all can see what is occurring and can act accordingly - whether to change the way they conduct their online activity or to change their political affiliations etc.

Part of the problem is that the entire governmental and corporate structure is anti-freedom, so for them to be totally transparent would be for them to be to some extent also anti-corporate.. Which would understandably cause them cognitive dissonance!