And what else does in say in their terms of service about their control of what they think is appropriate content?
Both sides benefit as long as both sides play by the rules, but the fact is the YouTube platform is private property and they control what gets carried.
“And what else does in say in their terms of service about their control of what they think is appropriate content?”
—
This is where you get to address another area - define “appropiate” (not you, Youtube or whatever). It’s not “appropriate” to be a member of or support a political party? Or to say there is a difference between male and female, it’s basic biology?
Also, if a social media is working to promote or attack a candidate or party, shouldn’t they register as such (in effect & deed a pac) and be subject to all the related laws and requirements?
“Both sides benefit as long as both sides play by the rules, but the fact is the YouTube platform is private property and they control what gets carried.”
—
This is where the social should be anti-trusted and broken up or forego any special legal civil protection (and, in fact, be even more regulated as social control systems and/or PACs).
The breakup of Ma Bell brought a revolution in the economy, business and technology, so perhaps something good may even come of it.