[testis321]

There should be only once choice, either you're a platform or a publisher.

A platform should be open, and only illegal stuff should be removed. No preferences, no nothing.

A publisher can be closed, can be whatever they want it, can filter whatever, promote whatever and censor whatever.

...but!

If you're a publisher, you've decided what to publish, and you should be responsible for all content published on your webpage. Fake news? Illegal porn? Nuclear bomb plans? Your problem, your responsiblity, you face the consequences.

If you want to be an open platform and blame users for content posted there (and have them face the consequences), then you should have no right to promote, censor or block/hide content (except illegal).

[mike00632]

The "illegal" criteria seems rational for countries that have rational laws but in many countries there are laws against political speech or criticism of people in power. By removing that 'illegal' speech in those countries the platform is in effect working as a government actor to police customers in those nations.

[Reelin]

In such nations (ex China), this entire debate is irrelevant - you follow their rules or they kick you out.

In western societies, this debate is relevant and I strongly side with the poster you replied to. That being said, reasonably unbiased filtering should probably be allowed in some form. For example, while I don't want YouTube picking sides politically, I also wouldn't want to force them to host hardcore pornography against their will.