If that platform was owned by the government, or in the public domain. Or not owned by anybody, like the space around our planet. Then such shenanigans would definitely be called censorship and a violation.
But because it's privately owned, it isn't.
The way it hinges on who's name is on the receipt. Which is just a legal artifact. Seems unrealistic.
I mean, the more realistic take is : yes, our whole population is definitely using it to communicate. Before that solid fact any mere legalism is insubstantial.
And when you look at it that way it follows that there is definitely a snake in the cradle.
Private censorship is absolutely censorship. Anyone disagreeing is engaged in a dishonest semantic argument as there are numerous examples of it usage this way that predate this debate by decades.
The argument is that the first ammendment protects the right to engage in private censorship.
In my mind, the core debate at the center of the issue is the assertion that corporations have the same rights as any other citizen. I think that is patently absurd but the Supreme Court disagrees.
My wording was a bit careless in my previous post: I didn't distinguish between censorship and free speech violations. If YouTube deletes your video for violating ToS, that can be called censorship (in the same way that a forum moderator removing your post can be called censorship), but it's not infringing on your right to free speech.
This is because your right to free speech doesn't entail a right to any particular platform or channel. Others, including the government, are in no way obligated to help you broadcast your speech.
If your internet provider, phone operator, advertisement agency,
newspaper and TV station all decide to "not help you broadcast your speech" then you have no speech.
Now, i know this is crazy, what if someone 'encourages' them to make the correct decision regarding not helping you? Someone with loads of money and inflience, that doesn't like your speech? Like an oil company, sensoring an activist, is that still legal?
But because it's privately owned, it isn't.
The way it hinges on who's name is on the receipt. Which is just a legal artifact. Seems unrealistic.
I mean, the more realistic take is : yes, our whole population is definitely using it to communicate. Before that solid fact any mere legalism is insubstantial.
And when you look at it that way it follows that there is definitely a snake in the cradle.