First Amendment wouldn't apply here unless you were to somehow bring something like the state actors doctrine into it. It only regulates government behavior. St

First Amendment wouldn't apply here unless you were to somehow bring something like the state actors doctrine into it. It only regulates government behavior. Strictly speaking under the First Amendment YouTube is incapable of censorship. Under a more expansive concept of free speech, where we include things like monopoly market power or illegal use of force as government action; then you could argue that YouTube does censor things due to their large size. It's genuinely difficult to start your own video site and speak without being buried in hosting fees; so I think it's useful to talk about them censoring things in some contexts. However, we've also strayed far away from the First Amendment. Outside of those concepts; however, I don't think the word "censorship" is very useful. If Hacker News decides to ban me, I can go to many thousands of other private forae in order to speak. Perhaps we should use the term "para-censorship" to refer to these situations in which third parties decide to refuse to do business with you.