YouTube doesn't have any responsibility (especially legal) to the public discourse.

It's weird that people have decided that privately owned companies should be required to do things they don't want to do, in the name of freedom.

> YouTube doesn't have any responsibility (especially legal) to the public discourse.

Of course it does, should the government decide it does.

Just like how the Civil Rights acts mandated that certain private businesses have responsibilities to serve certain classes of citizens equally.

Just like the federal housing law requires landlords, corporate or not, to rent out to all people.

The government is allowed to mandate whatever it wants to benefit the public (the source of its power) so long as such a mandate is not prevented by a higher law.

The courts have found that these laws are constitutional:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v...

> countered that the restrictions requiring adequate accommodation for African Americans were unquestionably related to interstate travel and that Congress, under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, certainly had the power to address such a matter in law.

Apparently, all the US government would need to do is argue that YouTube, as a multi-state corporation, is subject to interstate commerce regulations, which is very precedented.

I would suggest that should congress decide to pass a law requiring youtube to carry Rand Paul's videos, the Supreme Court would toss it out as an infringement of youtube's first amendment right to free speech. As they should. If the government can require private media to carry government messages, the first amendment is toast.

> If the government can require private media to carry government messages, the first amendment is toast.

Currently, the government is directly involved in Facebook and Twitter's moderation decisions, by their own admission, and the Supreme Court is doing nothing, so I don't see your hypothetical as being very realistic.

I'm speaking in the present sense, you are speaking in a hypothetical sense.

YouTube doesn't have any legal responsibility to the public discourse.

> YouTube doesn't have any responsibility (especially legal) to the public discourse.

Well, for starters I'd be the first to argue that YouTube shouldn't have any legal responsibility for the public discourse. But the opinion that matters on that topic is YouTube's, and they believe they _do_ have a responsibility for the public discourse. That is why they are engaging in this program of censorship.

What I'm arguing here is that their plan to police misinformation is impossible and, consequently, can't work. And that they are showing an outrageous political bias and anyone with even a slight right-lean of opinion should get out now and find a different platform. Here today we see another example where it isn't working well, as YouTube starts clamping down on what are politically mainstream.

This isn't Alex Jones, this isn't Trump. This is now a doctor offering an opinion on medical practice that isn't his exact speciality. YouTube can't be consistently right on this stuff and they are throwing their weight around politically.

Not objecting to or defending the policy, just pointing out that Rounding 99% down to “doesn’t work” is a common disinformation tactic to be aware of when you hear it.

Rand Paul was hired of the people of Kentucky. He had no qualifications to public discourse outside of Kentucky and DC.

His qualifications are irrelevant if he's deliberately putting out misleading information in pursuit of a political goal.

Also, a medical license doesn't qualify a person as an epidemiologist or any other such expert, especially given that his license is in opthalmology.

Let's also not forget that he created a bogus certification board, started by family members, to certify his ability to practice. He's not currently certified to practice medicine by any legitimate medical organization.