In order to receive "Safe harbour" copyright immunity for uploaded user content, you have to have fairly lax rules on content (e.g. only blocking actual criminal content, which is all youtube have done before this, right?).
If you want to significantly curate your content, you can't hide behind the legal protection of "uncurated user content".
Youtube has always blocked porn. Youtube has had a other restrictions as well, for example at first all videos had to be under 10 minutes. In response to criticism of disturbing videos of children, youtube deleted 150k videos of children in disturbing situations[1]. Read the guidelines from 2009[2], there's various things banned there that aren't illegal.
[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/youtube...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20091114041327/http://www.youtub...
Is YouTube gaining some benefit from pretending to be an open platform? I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Likewise, isn't copyright infringement is a criminal offense?
Youtube currently benefits massively from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_... as they are not directly liable for people uploading content they don't own.
I'm suggesting that we only let people have that immunity if they aren't significantly curating their content.
If they significantly curate their content, they should be able to curate copyright too.