[zucker42]

The words "free speech" and "1st amendment" are never used in the article. "Free press" is used only in passing. As far as I can tell, your mention of the 1st amendment is a complete non sequitur, and you are the only one doing the confusing.

The question is whether what YouTube is doing is good for society, and Matt Taibbi says no. He's criticizing YouTube for doing something he thinks is bad, since public criticism is sometimes effective at altering corporate actions. It's pretty annoying that so many people try to sidestep this topic by saying that the first amendment does not prevent private censorship. Pretty much everyone agrees with that.

And denigrating people you disagree with is unnecessarily inflammatory.