[ubernostrum]

The whole point of Free Speech is to enable all sides of any issue to have their say

And that freedom includes the freedom to say "I don't want to be associated with you".

Any "anti-deplatforming" is, of necessity, forced unwilling speech. Which is sort of the opposite of what "free speech" people should be standing up for. If someone doesn't want to lend you their soapbox, the solution is not to put a gun to their head and order them to hand it over; it's to go build your own soapbox. And if enough people are unwilling to associate with you that it's becoming burdensome to maintain your soapbox (difficulty getting materials, etc.), perhaps that's a sign from the marketplace of ideas that your ideas aren't very good.

[stcredzero]

Any "anti-deplatforming" is, of necessity, forced unwilling speech. Which is sort of the opposite of what "free speech" people should be standing up for.

No, the "relaying" or "transmission" argument is just a dishonest gambit in 2018. Only idiots believe YouTube thinks everything some YouTuber might say on their own channel. Should AT&T have had the right to cut off phone calls containing speech they didn't like? There were party lines where entire groups of people could hear the same person speak, so it wasn't just one on one communication. Should AT&T have had the right to cut those off because of AT&T's "free speech" rights?

Sorry, but the effect of such a position is to allow large companies to regulate the speech of the general public. Their inability to censor the general public doesn't somehow mean that they lose any ability to express their views to the public. It only curtails their ability to squelch the expression of others.

[ubernostrum]

If a baker has deeply-held religious beliefs, can they refuse to bake cakes for people with different religious beliefs? If not, why can't online platforms decide not to do business with people whose beliefs or actions they find distasteful? If so, can you articulate a meaningful difference between the two cases?

And that's without getting into the issue where you've just effectively rolled back CDA 230. Why shouldn't sites be able to make and enforce rules for the use of their platforms? And how small can a platform be and still have you put the government's gun to its head and force them to act the way you want? If I run a web site where people can discuss things, are you going to send a SWAT team to my house and have them shoot me unless I stop kicking out Nazis?

For all the hand-wringing you want to do over what is, in the end, an exercise of the right of free association (which includes the right not to associate), you seem completely unconcerned with the kinds of horrific consequences that would come from forcing everyone to provide a platform to the whole world. So maybe first you should practice what you preach -- start tithing in support of causes you hate, listening to lectures in support of those causes, and going out in public carrying signs and banners for those causes. After all, by not doing that, you're already censoring them, and that's horrible!

[8note]

YouTube is a publisher, and acts with editorial control.

Right now, they're emphasizing Indian content. it's they're freedom to downplay Western content to get broader appeal to an Indian audience

[slededit]

They explicitly claim the opposite when taking their DMCA safe harbor provision.