[abernard1]

> No one is taking this right from you.

Correct. But it's tantamount to saying "you can't speak in this public square, how about you pretend your front yard is a public square and speak there."

Eventually, people are going to say the hell with that and that Google's "private" management of 90% of inbound searches and content is, in fact, public.

After that, maybe we can start calling it Gov-gle or something once it's nationalized.

[somehnrdr14726]

There are no public squares on the internet. Every DNS resolution leads to privately owned 'land'. You can be escorted off the property for nearly any reason.

Maybe Youtube gave the misconception that they were a public square when they weren't moderating as heavily.

[abernard1]

> Maybe Youtube gave the misconception that they were a public square when they weren't moderating as heavily.

Welp. Time to get rid of Section 230 then!

Apparently these companies aren't neutral carriers and should be held liable for what they censor in their editorial discretion.