> All countries already have laws regulating speech to various degrees of freedom. This is mostly unrelated to what I'm talking about. > The topic at hand is

> All countries already have laws regulating speech to various degrees of freedom. This is mostly unrelated to what I'm talking about. > The topic at hand is about monetization of ads That's one (important) aspect of "YouTube’s LGBTQ Problem", but it is not the only issue. As others have mentioned, some of Google's attempts to "fix" the problem have, for example, been used as a weapon by various hate groups to get LGBTQ channels deleted (not just demonetized), or by fascists to remove anti-fascist reporting. > the "acceptability" of the content is determined by the ad buyers A big part of the problem is that this isn't actually true in practice. The "acceptability" of content is determined by Google's algorithm. They chose to use an opaque algorithm that they hope implements a very good approximation of what ad buyers consider "acceptable". As we've seen many times over the last few years, this has resulted in problems on all sides, including ad buyers. > it's just the market "just" a market ignores that markets are created in an legal environment that can be modified (e.g. adding, modifying, or removing regulations or policies) > The problem here is about execution not policy. The problem for Google is that they are choosing to have any policy at all. They are implementing opaque policies and thus are the only party that can be responsible for the resulting mess. > The plaintiffs argue Not relevant to my point;' I'm addressing the fundamental problem with Google's management of youtube (or similar platforms), not any particular case. > Are you suggesting that Google should create additional authority to regulate itself beyond what is legally required and needed for their business? More or less, yes. If decisions about monetization, video censorship, channel deletion, etc are going to be made, they need to happen through some kind of well-defined due process (aka being "ruled by laws"). Google could define that process unilaterally - which would be a major improvement from the current opaque and arbitrary status quo - but the best option would be to start some type of open/public entity/process for creating and managing what is meant by "due process on youtube". > create some expert panel that can compel Google to censor certain content? That already exists! That panel is whatever group inside Google chose the algorithm(s) that has been demonetizing and/or censoring videos over the last few years. I'm suggesting that transparent, publicly accountable panel is better than a hidden panel of unknown Google employees. Yes, both types will have problems, but at least we can see and attempt to fix the panel when it is public.