I sort of feel like a dunce reading this thread, as I can't get my head around the fact that Youtube removing a video is being called censorship. Doesn't Hacker

I sort of feel like a dunce reading this thread, as I can't get my head around the fact that Youtube removing a video is being called censorship. Doesn't Hacker News let readers downvote unpopular opinions until they're effectively erased? Why isn't anyone calling HN on its censorship? Is it just the size of the viewership that matters, as if, after a big enough user threshold you have to act like a public service? I'm being honest here, why should Youtube have to host any uploaded video it doesn't want to? Question to free speech absolutists: should Youtube allow pornographic videos on its site? What about extremely violent videos, like car crash fatalities, etc? What about child pornography? Why does Youtube /have/ to host garbage? Isn't the issue here something else, that a lot of people now have bandwith to express what they want, yet the biggest channels for this expression are just like every other important commercial segment, in that a few very big companies are in control of most of the bandwith? When did network TV stations were accused of censorship if they didn't want to air a KKK ad, or interview one of its leaders just because he wanted to air his opinions on race?