It would be more in line with your local library refusing to catalog your book. Youtube is a content host, not a publisher.

TV stations almost entirely host content.

So my point still stands that the norm is for media companies to be able to curate their content as they see fit.

YouTube looks a lot like a content publisher to me. It's a monitisation platform. It transcodes for devices. It indexes the content and makes search & discovery available.

Even the terminology is consistent with publisher - channel, subscriber, and so on.

If the content is explicitly uploaded to YT, then how is it not a publisher?

> YouTube looks a lot like a content publisher to me. It's a monitisation platform. It transcodes for devices. It indexes the content and makes search & discovery available.

The monetization aspect seems to be the only differentiation between what would consist a virtual library and a publisher.

And we know how difficult it is to get monetized on YouTube and make it a viable source of income.

Public libraries are required by law to catalog books. Very different. Private libraries can and will often deny to catalog your random book.

> My local paper won't publish libelous comments

would your paper do that it would become a likely target of defamation. Youtube claims to be a platform and is exempt from that risk.