It was not "remove this", it was "this probably violates your TOS", so that could be the difference between asking social media companies to take stuff down for only the Government's interest versus both the Government's and the platform's interests. The FBI isn't going to Klan website hosts and asking them to take down Klan content because those hosts don't forbid hosting that sort of speech.
A bank is acting as a trustee of property, corporate social mediums unfortunately do not.
If you want a legal right to individual freedom of speech on corporate commons, be explicit about it and work for that! Focusing on this small slice of corporate censorship just because it was encouraged by the government is distraction from the fundamental problem.
And I don't understand the argument that the social networks' willingness to cooperate makes the government's actions more acceptable.
That's a bit like allowing the government to confiscate property without a trial, if the bank is cooperative.