Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's pretty cut and dry that it's exclusive to government
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I presume that this is from the US constitution. How does this have anything to do with what I said? I did not mention the US nor its constitution anywhere in my post.
I would like to think about it another way. Suppose you are a "Youtuber" and you have tens of thousands of subs and use it as an income. You agree to their guidelines and they, in turn, become hugely popular due to your content and your fellows. But their guidelines grow more vague and harsh randomly and without warning.
Now, Youtube closes your channel, again, without warning or explanation. You don't have the money for a lawyer to sue and contract laws continue to trend Youtube's favor to control creators - esp. if those that go against political narratives that are officially "untrue." Alphabet Inc censors results for China, you don't think they do it for the US?
Does that sound fair and just? Look at what happened to Alex Jones. Was he a nut - yea, but he was shut down across every platform at once. Which is censorship - good or bad.
There is a media cartel and they have grown to control the internet by waiting for good products and companys to come about and either killing them or corrupting them. Think Snapchat, Vine, Google, Youtube, Reddit, Ring, etc, etc.
Yes, censorship is not exclusive to the government.