[pkteison]

A farmer has successfully been prosecuted under the -Interstate Commerce Clause- for growing his own wheat on his own land for his own use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

It never left a state, it never left his farm, it was not for sale, it is definitely not interstate commerce, yet he violated the interstate commerce clause (reasoning was that if he had not grown his own wheat, he would have had to buy some, which would affect the market, which would affect interstate commerce.)

It's because of things like this that cause people to interpret legal language in the worst possible imaginable light - 'very difficult' has happened many times.

So I think it's quite reasonable to assume that at some point Youtube and Facebook will be found to be "...marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in offering goods or services in a manner that facilitates [illegal things]"

One ad that says "Post comments without logging in!" would be sufficient to meet the letter of that language. You really think this is a 'hyperbolic threat'?