I think my post laid out the response to this clearly: NYTimes has affiliated authors, thus enabling liability. Youtube has promotion at best, more like allowin

I think my post laid out the response to this clearly: NYTimes has affiliated authors, thus enabling liability. Youtube has promotion at best, more like allowing. The sheer scale of Youtube and the vastness of what is allowed (their monetization system is fucked and needs reform/regulation but that's another matter than liability) makes it clear that youtube is applying policies with large swaths of opinion, not taking any editorial stances beyond what they deem is hate/abuse. If youtube only allowed centrist opinion vlogs and no other content, you might have a point. They are not even close to comparable to that in a practical world.