You and parent seem to have missed my point. I'm not defending google. I'm pointing out that using google is a choice, a choice with lots of alternatives. Goo

You and parent seem to have missed my point. I'm not defending google. I'm pointing out that using google is a choice, a choice with lots of alternatives. Google's choice not to host certain things is itself a speech act. Don't try to police Google's speech. Instead, make sure there are plenty of alternatives to Google for the people who Google doesn't want to host. If there's no alternative to google, then google's policing becomes a problem. THAT is why it's important that governments not censor speech -- you don't have alternative choices for government. And THAT is why privately owned censor-happy monopolies of the press are just as huge a threat to free speech as governments. But -- and this is my point -- there are a near infinite number of alternatives to google. Google does not have a monopoly of the press. If someone believes they can't speak freely because youtube won't host your videos, then that incorrect belief is a huge problem. A much larger problem than youtube choosing not to host their videos.