If this is censorship then everything is censorship. "You can't smoke in my house" "call all the papers I'm being censored!" If you want to have a real discus

If this is censorship then everything is censorship. "You can't smoke in my house" "call all the papers I'm being censored!" If you want to have a real discussion about it you have to concede that there are degrees to everything. Which is why some form of, according to your definition, censorship are illegal and some are not. What youtube is doing here is entirely supported by the constitution. There is not even a gray area, or a maybe or a second interpretation, nothing. Youtube is entirely within their rights, as is every one else, to decided what they want to host, share and promote on their platform, spending their own resources mind you as hosting and transferring videos costs a lot of money, and specially they have the right to decide with whom to enter into a financial contract, which is what they are doing here. I will argue forcing them to agree to pay or promote someone they are not legally required to is censorship. Otherwise, if you can't or won't realize there are degrees of what you call "censorship" and not all is the same then there is no point in having the discussion.