> For the same reason the telephone company isn’t allowed to arbitrarily cancel your phone service based on who you choose to call with it. That's not an analo

> For the same reason the telephone company isn’t allowed to arbitrarily cancel your phone service based on who you choose to call with it. That's not an analogous case. YouTube is more like a broadcast medium like TV or radio, and those have never been treated as common carriers. A sexy phone call between two people doesn't affect AT&T's reputation, but pornography hosted on YouTube would affect theirs. > This is precisely the problem. Before, the bar to be silenced was the law; now the bar to be silenced is arbitrary application of “mainstream social mores”. Surely you see the problem there? Have you never derived benefit from media or creative works that fall outside of “mainstream social mores”? Being taken down from YouTube does not equate to being silenced. There are many other ways you can express your ideas and opinions, especially if you are willing to do so in non-video form. And the bar to expression on someone else's publishing platform has never only been legal. Every medium has had gatekeepers, generally far more stringent than YouTube's. > Even if you haven’t, YouTube’s been deleting videos of war crimes in Syria, making it harder for investigators to track them down and document them. How’s that for “mainstream social mores”? I don't see why it should be the responsibility of a for-profit entertainment company to provide hosting for war crimes investigators, any more than I would expect Hulu or Netflix to do the same. It would make far more sense to me for journalists or NGOs or governments to provide a place for people to upload their video evidence. There is no need for them to host it publicly, which is the expensive part of YouTube.