Yeah no. YouTube is arguably a very, very public platform. Open to the public; entirely populated and funded by the public (i.e. millions of content providers and viewers generate all the income).
Its reasonable to have different rules for a local newspaper vs a worldwide monopolist.
You just described every single business in the whole world except those funded by taxpayer money (which is generally what is meant by "funded by the public"). Actually, YouTube isn't even funded by the public -- they're funded by advertisers.
> Its reasonable to have different rules for a local newspaper vs a worldwide monopolist.
All local newspapers are owned by large companies. As for monopolist, you can't just throw that around without argument. YouTube is farfar from the only provider of online video.
That doesn't make it a monopoly! My local big box grocery store has more visitors than my local corner store.
Any other video provider on the Internet is just as accessible. If YouTube went away tomorrow, videos would still exist on the Internet. Most videos posted to YouTube of any value would immediately show up elsewhere.
Have you considered YouTube is popular because it's at least a little bit curated? Heck, YouTube wouldn't even exist without ContentID.
You're begging the question. Overwhelming market leader means nothing -- it doesn't automatically create any new obligations or responsibilities.
You actually have to make the argument that an overwhelming market leader in an otherwise niche market requires them to give up their free speech, marketing ability, hosting limits, income, etc.
Even having a monopoly isn't illegal; a company actually has to be convicted of abusing a monopoly position for anything to be required of them.
Its reasonable to have different rules for a local newspaper vs a worldwide monopolist.