[chipotle_coyote]

"But what YouTube is doing would clearly be bad if it was done by a totally different actor in a totally different context" simply doesn't work as a defense here. Yes, it would be bad if the phone company got to decide who made phone calls, but let's pick something closer to the actual context here: "Should comedy clubs get to decide who gets to perform on their stage? Should they stop booking you if you say things that are unpopular?"

Telecommunications companies in the past have been treated as "public functions," legally speaking, because they were explicitly designated so by the state and given limited regional monopolies. The limits on liability afforded to YouTube and similar services do not magically transform them to state actors; they remain private corporations with their own First Amendment rights not to publish and host what they choose not to. This principle has been tested repeatedly in many cases.

[AbrahamParangi]

I am not making any statement as to the legality of YouTube/Google/Alphabet's actions.

The effective position of YouTube is that they have responsibility over nothing you or I say but discretion over everything. How does that make sense? I believe that asymmetry is wrong.

[username90]

> The limits on liability afforded to YouTube and similar services do not magically transform them to state actors

We are arguing that we should change the law to ensure that the principle of free speech applies to them as well. If they want to editorialize content then they should review content before it is posted rather than after. The only reason they should take something down is for legal reasons, like not having kids watch porn so no porn.