"No, hacking implies that the system was not in your control, and was taken over nefariously or by other non legal means"
Yes, I am perfectly aware that this is what many people think "hacking" means now. I'm simply unwilling to stop fighting the battle against this corruption of the term. At least until we have a new term that can replace the traditional meaning of "hacking".
You're trying to inject logic into a well-established idiom like "dog eat dog". The idiom may not make literal sense (few idioms do), but that's what it is nonetheless.
The history of this idiom is particularly interesting and explains your observation of its biological inaccuracy:
Canis caninam non est is an old Latin proverb that translates to dog will not eat dog. The modern version, seen first in the 1930’s, is a play on the old one, suggesting that society had turned so vicious, that dog is now capable of eating dog.
"Twitter et al. should let ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other groups roam freely everywhere they see fit, leverage the power to broadcast their message, potentially to millions of people, all around the world, with each tweet, with each video, with each Facebook post,"
Twitter, as well as all the other private platforms, can do what it likes.
However, I am very opposed the idea that censoring propaganda, etc., is a good and desirable thing. It's the direct opposite of that.
If Twitter (or whoever) is shutting down accounts because they're abusive, consist of violent threats, etc., then I congratulate them.
If, however, they are shutting down accounts that don't do these things but are instead run by "terrorists" or are used for recruitment, propaganda, or any other protected speech, then I condemn them.
Twitter can do what it wants, obviously, but I'm very uncomfortable with this business about "deleting terrorist accounts". How are they determining what counts as worthy of deletion? Twitter isn't saying, but they admit that it's a bit of a "know it when you see it" thing:
As we mentioned in February, and other companies and experts have also noted, there is no one “magic algorithm” for identifying terrorist content on the Internet.
Also, they seem to be combining two entirely different things: accounts which advocate violence, and accounts which appear to be supportive of terrorist groups. I'm OK with the former -- it's usually very clear when someone is urging violent action -- but I'm not OK with the latter. What counts as "supportive"? What counts as a "terrorist group"?
What ensures that people won't be silenced just because they express strong criticism of their government, or because they were engaging in discussion about a terrorist group?