[semimojo]

That’s an incredibly silly and desperate grasping at straws, totally divorced from any reality. Try coming up with something that involves two parties where both are making a profit from their interactivity and no crime has been committed (as in the reality discussed here)- if you can.

You left out a pretty important element. They're using someone else's private property to make their profit and they're using it at the property owner's pleasure.

[LouieFisk]

“They’re using someone else’s private property”
—
I don’t know anyone who has trouble getting to Youtube. NO guard dog last I checked - using several browsers.

“they’re using it at the property owner’s pleasure”
—
Nope - they are in a legal business relationship where they supply content and Youtube pays them. As long as they provide content, Youtube has to keep up it’s end of the bargain.
Now, if Youtube can demonstrate in a court of law that they’re silencing an equal or greater amount of users for being Democrats, more power to them. But, facing that task, I suspect they would fold faster than CNN when it realized settling for many millions with the Covington kid was a less costly choice.