The totality of the public space being private property in the aforementioned scenario sounds like a unique situation and a poor position to reason from. Reall

The totality of the public space being private property in the aforementioned scenario sounds like a unique situation and a poor position to reason from. Really? Because most of YouTube and Facebook very much strikes me as public space. That's how the population thinks of it. That's how society uses it. You would be protecting a wholly imaginary free speech interest while trespassing on a real one. Does anyone really think that YouTube not getting to censor people is hampering YouTube's ability to express their political expression? No one in 2018 mistakes a random YouTuber's opinion for YouTube's. Only people interested in silencing others hold to such an opinion. Such an opinion only makes sense, if you directly equate censorship to "expression." YouTube does have an editorial stake to the product that they can present to their advertiser customers. However, YouTube has stepped way beyond that line! The same goes for Facebook.