If people disagree with YouTube's normative choices they can (a) wage a boycott, (b) create a new platform that follows the desired norms, (c) attempt political

If people disagree with YouTube's normative choices they can (a) wage a boycott, (b) create a new platform that follows the desired norms, (c) attempt political action to regulate private companies. I don't think (a) is very effective due to the practicality of network effects and also that video hosting is quite expensive. A distributed system may solve the money issues of (b), but the legal ramifications of child exploitation will chill any unmoderated distributed system. For (c), because of the first amendment, I'm not sure what political regulation is possible (see Citizen's United). The government probably can't regulate YouTube's free speech (hosting videos) even if that limits other peoples speech (on their platform). I think one solution would be a distributed but not private video peer-to-peer hosting system. Perhaps like a public IPFS? Speech would protected against government intervention, but without privacy it could be easily policed. I don't think a peer-to-peer system will gain any traction if it is possible to host illicit content that the government could punish you over, so that's why I raise those points.