This seems very simplistic. YouTube is more than a company, it is a community of hundreds of millions of users and thousands of workers. People use YouTube not just for ability to search and share videos, or the recommendation engine, but for the user created content. The owner of the platform is the shareholders, and their designee, the CEO, is ultimately responsible for the decision. I don't think the broader definition of YouTube made this decision.

I think it's wrong to be okay with YouTube suppressing information and misinforming people about global pandemics just because they own the corporation and infrastructure YouTube is built on. YouTube is abusing their monopoly to hurt people.

People don't like government censorship and misinformation not because it's inherently wrong for government to do these things, but because censorship and misinformation create harm. When you consider YouTube's scale and lack of real competitor - it's obvious that their censorship and misinformation is also harmful and therefore problematic. Even if it's legal, it's certainly not moral.

You know its funny how I only see this argument when the service is doing something they agree with. When it's something they don't like there's suddenly outrage.

Remember a few years ago ISPs wanting to remove net neutrality and wanting to potentially charge for access to websites on "their platform"? Suddenly they're big enough to be a "public utility" and "invasion of free speech".

You can't have it both ways.

Completely different. ISPs are often a government granted monopoly. You can't just up and start one to compete, so it makes sense that they must be neutral. It's not a free market.

Anyone can start a YouTube clone, and if enough people disagree with YouTube's policies, they'll come use the clone. That's the free market of ideas.

See: Reddit/Voat

So if they make the wrong decisions and spread misinformation or fail to censor misinformation, can I sue them?

Why do they get the power but none of the responsibility? Is it just because they happen to agree with your worldview? And what if they don't -- what if they start banning videos that suggest Taiwan is a country? Would your opinion change?

> So if they make the wrong decisions and spread misinformation or fail to censor misinformation, can I sue them?

IANAL but unless someone is knowingly spreading false information as true (i.e. fraud), the answer is no. They probably don't even carry the burden of having to reasonably vet information first.

> Why do they get the power but none of the responsibility?

Because it is your privilege to use YouTube, not your right.

Ok, so what you're saying is that if YouTube starts banning videos that suggest Taiwan is a country, you would support their decision.

No, but I also wouldn't call for legal intervention.

Not sure why so many people think it's good for Google and Facebook to be able to control the flow of information on the internet.

They don't control the flow of information. Feel free to host your alternative to YouTube if you there's a good number of people who feel the same as you out there. The problem is I'm pretty sure you're the exception... and even if you weren't, once you were as big as YouTube you'd deal with the same dilemmas so the easier recommendation is: get off your high horse.

That's sort of my point, private corporations run sites that are used by hundreds of millions of Americans, but they're not held accountable by our laws the way, for example, news corps are.

> once you were as big as YouTube you'd deal with the same dilemmas

Yeah I'm not saying only YouTube should be regulated, I'm saying sites like YouTube and Facebook should be properly classified as publishers and held to standards as such.

> They don't control the flow of information.

This is a false statement. The vast majority of Americans get their news from Facebook, and yes, YouTube. They do control the flow of information. If it's not on Facebook or YouTube, it might as well not exist for over 50% of Americans. That's huge power that these corps wield with no oversight, dontcha think?

> get off your high horse

Uh there's no horse anywhere around here sir.

There's a difference between "good" and "illegal".

What makes you think I'm discussing the current state of US law? I think it's pretty obvious that I'm discussing what ought to be, not what is.

Then the second part of what I said applies: why should the government infringe on my speech because I have a popular platform?