But they have other criteria besides political views that are spelled out in their terms of service and which they use to justify removing content.
You've just admitted that discriminating based on ideology is fine - Jim does it.
So your argument is reduced to saying YouTube isn't up front about it.
Would it satisfy you if they added "unacceptable political views" to their TOS?
Again, if it's OK for FR it's OK for everyone (legally speaking).
Jim and Free Republic have never claimed to be a neutral carrier as big tech does. FR is a discussion forum for Consevative views. FR has never claimed neutrality nor claimed to be a carrier/platform or public utility. You are mixing apples and oranges.
And you insist on ignoring previous information, like the RULES listed in Section 230.
You sound like a Progressive intent on controlling information..
Again, if it's OK for FR it's OK for everyone (legally speaking).
No. It isn't. Big Tech claims to be a neutral platform like AT&T and they are acting as publishers.
You are frantic to allow them to break the rules and control information flow. Who are you rooting for? Bernie or Fauxcahontas? Or do you own stock in Big Tech?
We are done.