[epivosism]

Yes, I didn't break them out but I do consider some types of basic filtering to be legitimate because they're both common across cultures, and their limits can be described fairly precisely. These are things such as prohibitions on political, ethnic or religious conflict, criminal activities, nudity, and of course, copyright.

Actually, treating censorship of those things as the default global level of censorship makes the difference between restrictive sites like Wikipedia and the rest of the Internet even more stark.

It's almost unimaginable that YouTube would remove a creators content simply because they thought the topic was irrelevant, or the quality too low. So I agree we can't have a true free for all online. But the distinction between the large group of UGC sites that really try to cultivate and protect their creators from those that don't is reflected in the popularity and growth rates of them all.