If people just wanted a conservative web site where they could preach to the choir, then it already exists: FreeRepublic.
What people like Steven Crowder, Stefan Molyneux, Ben Shapiro, Lauren Southern, etc. want is a place where they can broadcast their message to people of all political persuasions in hopes of broadening the support for conservative ideas.
That won't happen if they all move to FreeRepublic or places like Vimeo with fewer and more homogeneous viewers.
Corporations only exist as fictitious people because they are granted this privilege by the government. That privilege can be taken away. YouTube hosts videos providing tips to sex tourists visiting Thailand. If so, then what set of Terms of Service will allow that but prevent people from advocating for conservative opinions?
My own take is that Supreme Court justices are chosen by politicians beholden to large corporations. They will decide this case in favor of large corporations. Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. and the companies that advertise on these platforms would all like politics, especially conservative politics, removed from the internet. So eventually most conservative thought will either be eliminated from the internet or compartmentalized safely in places like FreeRepublic. This will happen regardless of whatever legal, economic or philosophical arguments anyone can muster.
NOTE: Very few of my conservative friends have even heard of FreeRepublic. And these are very, very conservative friends who watch the news and surf the internet for the latest information. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are a ghetto.
I agree that they will rule with the large corps. But there sure is legal precedent for making them respect constitutional rights for everyone.
Bock v Westminster Mall: because the mall owner allowed a wide range of activities such as Christmas events, pageants, military recruiters, commmunity events, etc inside the common area of a mall, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the mall was a “latter day public forum” and could not eject protesters, and had to respect their 1st amendment rights.
Marsh v Alabama: the US Supreme Court ruled that a private company town had to permit free speech activities because it acted like a de facto real town.
The common element seems to be:
Allow public to have access, allow a wide range of activities other than the original narrow scope and allow government offices to set up.
The reason I believe FB, YT, Twitter and Google meets this requirement is because anyone can see a Channel, page or feed unless it is marked private, they all allow cities and recruiters to “set up shop” and they allow a very wide variety of activities. For example on FB you can post pet adoptions, shop (marketplace), have a business or personal page, go sign up to vote or contact your favorite politician.
If FB was just for talking to your relatives then it would never meet the requirements, but for the benefit of the stockholders, they promote a large variety of activity. Read the Bock v Westminster Mall rulings and it seems like it fits exactly what FB, Twitter and YouTube do.
This case isn’t about big corporation. This case is about public access TV which comes with certain necessities to serve the broader public interest as part of a cable company’s agreement to be a sole provider.
On the FB et al front we damn well better HOPE that if it becomes a case to the Supreme they decide in favor of the corporations. Because that’s deciding in the favor of private property. If FB can’t kick messages off their property they don’t like, then neither can you. I’d be able to put a political sign in your yard you don’t agree with and you wouldn’t be able to take it down. Free speech ends at the property line, and this is a good thing.