Sorry, “can” was misleading there since you can obviously get information elsewhere. What I’m wondering is: If a company chooses not to publish something, how is that different than deciding what people are allowed to see?

It’s different because they can get it elsewhere. Government censorship makes any source illegal. Extreme government censorship puts you in jail for reading about a dangerous idea.

A company censoring information on their platform seems deeply different, no?

> A company censoring information on their platform seems deeply different, no?

Not necessarily; I think that is the crux of the discussion.

From a legal point of view it is deeply different. From a practical point of view it's not so clear. If a video isn't on Youtube, for many it's the same as not existing at all. For example, my Roku can show YouTube videos, but cannot access arbitrary urls.

In general, platforms are not supposed to discriminate, while Publishers do. This particular case makes that distinction far less obvious. I'd like to see some alternative, such as markings, instead of a simple include or not.

Your points are related to user behavior, not platform-provider behavior.

If a publisher decides not to publish my book, they are not "deciding what people are allowed to see."

Yes, all publishers being equal, true. But what if the publisher controlled most of the book stores that only carried their books? Would they then decide what people see if they chose not to publish?

Google does not have operational control over humans' bodies.

If we're looking at what things have control over our bodies, the Youtube Sidebar cannot be dismissed as inconsequential.