I don't think that's quite true and I don't have a copy of their terms of service from 2011. Let's apply their rules as they stand today to various artists:

"(f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime"

This could apply to the French author Michel Houellebecq for his novel Submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(novel)#Controversy), along with another novel by the author.

Let's not even entertain the thought of this rule applied to various rap artists in popular culture.

"(g) items that are considered obscene" & "(i) certain sexually oriented materials or services"

This could apply to a number of artists, such as Robert Mapplethorpe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mapplethorpe#Controvers...). His art was considered obscene, and prurient, yet is now exhibited in major museums.

If your enemy were to again power, or an unjust ruler, how might these laws be used against you and the culture? Just because your "side" is winning now doesn't mean that will always be the case. Just because we're now "enlightened" and we would no longer jail Galileo or throw a fuss over Mapplethorpe does not mean that will always be the case. Are the rules just? Why is a finance company policing expression on the internet? Why are we turning to a finance company for moral guidance?

Check webarchive, I'm on my phone right now so I don't have a link.

I don't see the difference between the old and the new terms regarding your comment, I'm afraid.

Now is that a dumb role that obviously invites arbitrary enforcement? Sure. But it's not new, those issues were there for at least 11 years.