By the way, you might know that in California, shopping centers may have to allow people to engage in some expressive activity on their private property, even when they don't endorse the speakers' message:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

(I don't mean to suggest that this provides some kind of obvious solution to Internet content moderation disputes.)

Thanks! That’s what I was trying to refer to. But that seems different in a few ways. First, there’s actually physical open spaces in malls where the public is invited—you don’t have to shop. Second, the protest in a mall is ephemeral. Youtube is like a store in the mall, not the open forum (I don’t think Macy’s would be required to have a protest in its store); the internet is like that open space. Second, extending this to YouTube would require YouTube to proactively host a video on its servers, pay for costs to play it, and host it forever (until the protestor takes it down).

Those do all sound like significant differences between a physical mall and a video hosting service.

Walmart is not ubiquitous in terms of property the same way Youtube is in terms of streaming video. If you want to protest you can easily avoid Walmart. Likewise if you want to publish a book you can easily avoid Walmart.

If you want to communicate to a large audience with streaming video in the US (and many other nations), it's Youtube or nothing unless you have an already established audience (which you probably established on Youtube).

I don’t follow. When you protest at Walmart you aren’t guaranteed an audience either (people can ignore you and walk away). And when you make a video you don’t get granted an audience either. Why should YouTube have to help you out?

And people can walk away on Youtube, too. That's the equivalent.

Having an audience and Youtube not taking it away, is not the same thing as Youtube intentionally helping you build your audience.