[gowld]

The difference between something like NearlyFreeSpeech and something like YouTube, which is often lost in the noise, is that NearlyFreeSpeech is a hosting provider, while YouTube has, in addition, also an active editorial system and recommendation engine that promotes "offensive" content. Just as NFS is justified in hosting content and requiring uploaders to back it up with their real identity, so that those uploaders can be judged, people are justified in judging YouTube management for the content that YouTube management uploads (the Watch Next side-bar, and the comment streams it attaches to videos)

[stcredzero]

people are justified in judging YouTube management for the content that YouTube management uploads

You mean "promotes." People are free to judge. However, by granting discovery/virality selectively, rather than going by pure interest and numbers, YouTube is exercising editorial judgement. This makes them into a publisher, not a platform. People are free to urge YouTube to become a publisher. YouTube is free to follow suit or not and take the rewards and consequences of their actions.

[root_axis]

> This makes them into a publisher, not a platform.

Says who? "Publisher" and "Platform" are not mutually exclusive identities.