This is definitely relevant for multiple reasons. Pornographic content is legally protected free speech (except on broadcast TV for whishy washy reasons). Yet Y

This is definitely relevant for multiple reasons. Pornographic content is legally protected free speech (except on broadcast TV for whishy washy reasons). Yet YouTube does not host pornographic content and is not required to do so. To my knowledge, no large groups of people have demanded that YouTube host pornographic content in the decade or so of its existence under free speech grounds. It's only when YouTube stops hosting stuff they like that they suddenly consider it to be a free speech issue. And on the other hand, PornHub has offered to host the channels of people who were banned from YouTube. Few chose to move to PornHub because of the implications of this association, even though it is a more free option. To me it's all nonsense. If you want to host your own stuff unrestricted, start your own site or something like peertube. The more decentralized things are, the freer they are. Alex Jones can still post crazy shit about Sandy Hook families on his own site and deal with his own legal consequences which I will not comment on. But it's pretty obvious why YouTube doesn't want to deal with him. And while it's a bummer for fans of these hacking shows that YouTube won't be hosting their content, perhaps it's an opportunity to work towards decentralization.