> This is a non sequitur. Free speech is an ideal. We would like google to preserve free speech, even though they are not legally obligated to per the Constitution. If their EULA does not uphold that ideal, then they should change it, not compromise the ideal.

I would like to uphold that ideal by putting a political bumper sticker on your car. Can you give me your address so I can send it to you?

If you don't have a car, I can send you a sign to put in your window or a t-shirt with a slogan for you to wear.

I appreciate your cooperation in upholding this important ideal.

If they were a company offering services of transport, they might do that (e.g. ads on a side of a bus).

Alternatively this could be your next great side hustle: live ad and t-shirt marketing in the gig economy.

I'm going to agree but offer a different focus. The agreement is in that YouTube can do this legally and that is not the problem.

But this is also about the practice of ideals. I watched a Chris Martinson video (PhD neurotoxicology, runs something of a prepping channel on YouTube because he doesn't see how the current US approach will resolve comfortably for people who trust the government) on Vimeo the other day because they'd yanked it from YouTube (it discussed the coronavirus). If it has reached the point where YouTube won't let a medical PhD talk about medical research, what use is this platform to me? Music videos, I suppose.

The reason free speech is ideal happens to be because it is better - YouTube is less fit for purpose as an information distributor, it doesn't represent a full spectrum of opinions. I already know what the official government message is - they have a website. I read it on occasion.

> Free speech is an ideal. We would like google to preserve free speech

Is this self evident? Specifically google, or all and any private platforms? It's not obvious to me that every private entity should hold the ideal of free speech -- particularly a version of free speech that means something different than protection from persecution by the state.

But your desire for Google to host certain kinds of speech against their will doesn't supersede Google's own right to decide otherwise on their own platform.

They have their own free speech rights, as well as free association and the rights of free enterprise.

I generally agree with this but YouTube is a communication channel and has a different set of expectations. Additionally they promoted themselves as an open forum in the beginning.

Ideally, discrimination should not exist in something that is promoted as a public forum.

If YouTube only wanted to serve a certain type of genre or they had the same censorship policies from the beginning then that is one thing. But they promoted themselves as open and free speech and then once they achieved critical mass they changed their mind to push their own agenda.

That is dishonest and an abuse of public trust.

As a contrasting example, censoring porn, while still not free speech, would be fine for YouTube to continue to do since they had this stance from the beginning and people chose to join the platform knowing this.

>Additionally they promoted themselves as an open forum in the beginning.

Was this before or after Google? Because Google's interest in the platform is definitely maximizing revenue and competing with first party streaming services.