I think it's weird that Youtube would take that channel down because most people aren't going to have the patience to watch it, and they're not going to copy it.

Compare that to this fucking idiot, who has a huge and young audience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeNgIWj8ZM0

By the same token, everyone else can also do whatever they want. Including publicly criticizing Google for removing lawful information, advocating that everyone stop using their services until they change their policy, then using, promoting or creating competing services that don't censor, etc.

except that due to youtube and google's near monopoly on consumers, none of this is going to happen. This is why google can choose to censor (or in fact, do whatever the fuck they want), because they know their customers (i mean products) don't have anywhere else to go to.

The idea that they have a monopoly in email or video hosting is ridiculous. They have a thousand competitors and it's easy for customers to switch.

They still have a huge slice of those markets for the same reason Microsoft used to have a huge slice of the browser market -- they're the default on the most popular OS (once Windows, now Android). But Mozilla et al took a huge chunk out of Microsoft's browser share after customers got sick of all of Microsoft's anti-user behavior.

Because people will stay with the defaults unless they have a reason to switch. But if you do give them a reason, like banning legitimate content they want to view and create, that's another story.

And the more people switch, the better the alternatives get and the easier it is for more people to join them.

If "information should not be banned" and it doesn't work anyway, why are you OK with banning illegal stuff?

Also, to point out the obvious, it's OK to not want something on your site.

This is where you are wrong. It is either all or it is not. You can't draw the line. Either information can free flow through your router or it can't.

I can't really see it another way.