This idea that private companies earn special privileges in this regard because they were started by individuals needs to die.

So what's your take on Lawrence v. Texas?

Two people in their house,

a large, transparent non-profit advocacy organization,

a dark money lobbying org, and

a hundred-billion-dollar for-profit incumbent that acts as a pillar of human interaction for news, education and entertainment across the globe

are very different situations. It isn't as simple as scaling up numbers.

By phrasing what happened in the passive voice, you are downplaying the fact that Google actively strove to make it hard for new competitors to become established.

Of course there still are competitors to YouTube, depending on how we define the market for online video sharing, and Google didn't invent Metcalfe's Law, but nor should they be surprised that it was hard for alternative sites to compete. That is, after all, why they bought YouTube in the first place and discontinued Google Videos.

An attempt at practical antitrust regulation might mean, for example, that if a Walmart replaces every other business in your town through the sheer merit of its business model, that Walmart doesn't get to refuse to do business with you on the grounds that the manager hasn't liked you since high school. It might even mean that you reserve Constitutional rights like assembly/protest within the area that is functionally the public square, which is the private sidewalk in front of the Walmart.

I know which approach I would prefer.

I've recently had to talk to my internet provider, and that certainly increased my citizen's fervor in regulating companies in dominant positions, because every company will immediately turn around to milk/punish consumers, and try to influence politics for their benefit.

But to me, it's not a punishment. It's a natural consequence of YouTube's dominant position: they have to start acting like it.

So ideally if a video is to be taken down, it ought be under a rationale along the lines of "you agreed to not doing [very specific thing] and this video does it, therefore we took it down", not "technically by clicking on a link in our site, you agreed to fine print that says you'll sell us your soul, so suck it"

Yes, and that's a good thing because it encourages competition. No market should have a player with such a dominant position.

Companies exist to benefit the state and the people. If a company is so successful it distorts rights for everyone and puts fundamental rights at risk, it's not 'punishing' the company even though it might feel like it. It's making sure the conditions that created success for youtube remain in place for future generations - free speech to some degree, competition, etc.

I think corporate personhood and corporate rights are a cancer on society and the corporatism/corporate state/fascism-lite that the west is already deep into is destroying the fundamental freedoms in the country. Disney will always have more money than you to argue for their corporate rights against your personal rights.

This ruling is wisdom.

No, they bought that status by regularly sending dump-trucks full of gold to record labels.

No, it is just attaching some minimal responsibility to the enormous benefits that YT exploits their dominant market position for.