[glenstein]

>under the First Amendment.

If you're going to confine this conversation to the first amendment, then that's not relevant to youtube. For many the concept of speech in the sense pertinent here is broader than just U.S. law.

I've been on many HN threads where free speech absolutists make explicitly this point because they want to apply the concept of unfettered speech to private platforms, and they square the circle by insisting it's bigger than just the first amendment.

[gnicholas]

It's not all about the First Amendment, but if someone is going to equate two things that are treated differently under both American and other (UK, for example) laws, it's a relevant point. Also, Google is a company headquartered in the US, so US law is somewhat more relevant than other law.

[glenstein]

>but if someone is going to equate two things that are treated differently under both American and other (UK, for example) laws, it's a relevant point.

It's relevant insofar as legal distinctions between US and UK are relevant, which is to say, not relevant at all so far as I can tell. I don't think anyone's argument here hinged on such a distinction. If it did, and to that extent, it's relevant. But the heartland of this whole conversation has to do with a conception of speech as a principle that's broader than just U.S. law.

So we should be clear about the extent to which this is, or isn't, speaking to the conversation that everyone else is having.