In one recent interesting case of PragerU v YouTube[1], it was ruled in California that YouTube is not a public forum and the First Amendment does not apply. It

In one recent interesting case of PragerU v YouTube[1], it was ruled in California that YouTube is not a public forum and the First Amendment does not apply. It's not unthinkable that other platforms such as Facebook will or already have benefited from similar rulings. In the case of PragerU being censored, of course I can't deny that I am personally happy that YouTube is doing something about their inflammatory hate speech, but that is just my opinion. Perhaps next time they decide that something that I personally agree with should be banned from the platform. How will I react then? The major difference between Youtube and taking it to the streets is that the latter is protected by the law and provides a clear legal recourse if your right to express your opinion is denied. If private corporations now change how we take our opinion "to the streets", then the inevitable consequence will be that we're going to be censored one way or another. So to change all of this, perhaps we could 1) turn platforms such as YouTube owned by private corporations into public forums, 2) embrace a more federalized/decentralized web (web 1.0 self-host-style), where we put out our opinions on our own domains that we can call our own, 3) go out on the streets (difficult because covid-19) The fact that people tend to flock around opinions and communities will never change, but what we might consider changing is how these communities (Facebook, YouTube, etc.) are organized. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51658341 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51658341