> YouTube doesn't have any responsibility (especially legal) to the public discourse. Of course it does, should the government decide it does. Just like how t

> YouTube doesn't have any responsibility (especially legal) to the public discourse. Of course it does, should the government decide it does. Just like how the Civil Rights acts mandated that certain private businesses have responsibilities to serve certain classes of citizens equally. Just like the federal housing law requires landlords, corporate or not, to rent out to all people. The government is allowed to mandate whatever it wants to benefit the public (the source of its power) so long as such a mandate is not prevented by a higher law. The courts have found that these laws are constitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v... > countered that the restrictions requiring adequate accommodation for African Americans were unquestionably related to interstate travel and that Congress, under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, certainly had the power to address such a matter in law. Apparently, all the US government would need to do is argue that YouTube, as a multi-state corporation, is subject to interstate commerce regulations, which is very precedented.