Ironically, it’s net neutrality-type regulations that would prevent private web hosting companies from doing this kind of thing. Unless we regulate the web as a utility this will continue.
Net Neutrality doesn’t matter. The US gave up sovereignty of the Internet. Move your banned site to another country and it’s DOA if it’s not politically correct.
Or you could hide it on the dark net and receive a minute fraction of the original traffic.
Net neutrality applies to ISPs, who run the pipes, not to hosting companies. In any case, net neutrality is about forbidding the ISPs to charge differentially for carrying different types of or sources of content. E.g., X Corporation owns Y Cable, Inc., an ISP, and Z Sports, a content company. So, naturally, Y is strangely motivated to carry Z's traffic for less money and at higher speed than, say, W Sports, a competing content company.
Net neutrality is about business regulation, not about free speech.
The current case is not about net neutrality. It is, rather, a subversive attempt to repeal the First Amendment online. The people behind it must be reviled for being the fascists they are. The First Amendment must apply online as well as offline. And international opinion must not matter, even if the Muslim Traitor gave over authority the internet to an international body. We must take it back if we are to MAGA!
Internet registrars must be forced to accept all comers equally. ISPs must be forced to carry all traffic. As for hosting companies, well, if you have a domain and an ISP, you don't need a hosting company. You can do it yourself. You can be your own host.