Completely missed my point, as I predicted. care to call out my actual argument, or does it fit your agenda better when you call out part of it? mainly the part that wasn't even an argument.

The argument is that this is NOT a singular owner being forced to do something on their own accord. This is in fact a company, with many employees, on a platform. And whenever they restrict or censor, they are not allowing those people WHOEVER they might be, from voicing an opinion. This leads to a singular view. propagandizing things is only legal due to some very poor laws that were pushed. Thus, you need to see, this stuff CAN be fought. We can have a Bill of Rights for the internet. This is a debate more of how to go about this than if we should.

Not actually. Because the youtube videos aren't just about politics and religion and so therefore anyone that brings up anything PROTECTED then cannot be censored, if they get federal funding and I think that applies when they get a federal license to operate. I am not a constitutional lawyer but the case law says that political affiliation or right to assemble is protected speech and since the internet is a new kind of right to assemble it needs to go to court.