Your tell was the scare-quotes you put around "censors" and "banning". You had already decided. There was nothing anyone could have written to which you would

Your tell was the scare-quotes you put around "censors" and "banning". You had already decided. There was nothing anyone could have written to which you would have responded "Hmm. I did not know that. That appears to be censorship and banning. Thanks for letting me know about this." > "why should YouTube be forced to pay and promote..." I did not say they must pay and promote anyone. I listed examples of censorship and banning which was your original ask. Now you're saying they don't count because of freedom of association, inaccuracies, and politics. Of course there was going to be a goalpost-moving and semantics-arguing. Your tell lead me to expect it. As for me, I am disturbed by the extraordinary power of our contemporary platforms to unperson or memory-hole perspectives and views that are unpopular, whether or not the label "censors" or "banning" precisely fits, even if I agree that the perspective is reprehensible, and even if I agree that YouTube et. al. has a "right" to ban and censor.