[singleshot_]

Well, to be clear, such videos are not “banned,” but merely not within the scope of the coherent speech product YouTube seeks to produce. This is, of course, their right single the platform belongs to them.

You can make such videos all day long, but you would have to deliver them yourself, which is consistent with how free speech works in America.

[autoexec]

> Well, to be clear, such videos are not “banned,”

They're "banned" on youtube, which many people would argue is a monopoly. Certainly banning specific types of content on the largest and most popular video platform will have a massive impact on how many people will ever see that kind of content

I don't think it's unreasonable to raise concerns about censorship on platforms that have a disproportionate impact on what most people will or won't see.

[singleshot_]

Anyone who would argue that YouTube is a monopoly would probably also argue that Burger King and McDonald’s are monopolies. I agree that refusing to distribute snuff porn on YouTube probably has deleterious effects in the audience for that content.

But it is unreasonable and against the core free market principles of our capitalist society for you to be too concerned about what I publish with my web site. I have a first amendment right and you can’t force me, my company, or my property to carry speech.

Which isn’t to say you can’t be concerned about lack of visibility for content that’s banned by big platforms. You can. You probably should! But compelled private speech is not the answer, which is why you will, for example, frequently get pushback against the idea that this is even censorship. (I’m pedantic, but not enough so to adopt that view).