This is literally what free speech is. "You can speak your mind or I will kill you" or "You can speak your mind but if I disagree with you I will make sure that nobody can hear you again (by de-platforming you)" is not very free speech-y.
> but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard
You should certainly have the right to be heard by these that want to hear you.
Its reasonable to have different rules for a local newspaper vs a worldwide monopolist.
You just described every single business in the whole world except those funded by taxpayer money (which is generally what is meant by "funded by the public"). Actually, YouTube isn't even funded by the public -- they're funded by advertisers.
> Its reasonable to have different rules for a local newspaper vs a worldwide monopolist.
All local newspapers are owned by large companies. As for monopolist, you can't just throw that around without argument. YouTube is far far from the only provider of online video.
Any other video provider on the Internet is just as accessible. If YouTube went away tomorrow, videos would still exist on the Internet. Most videos posted to YouTube of any value would immediately show up elsewhere.
Have you considered YouTube is popular because it's at least a little bit curated? Heck, YouTube wouldn't even exist without ContentID.
The rules for it should be carefully considered, since it is a unicorn.
You actually have to make the argument that an overwhelming market leader in an otherwise niche market requires them to give up their free speech, marketing ability, hosting limits, income, etc.
Even having a monopoly isn't illegal; a company actually has to be convicted of abusing a monopoly position for anything to be required of them.
And no, I don't have to prove anything. Just that a reasonable congress should have oversight over the single most watched communications channel on the planet.
This is just dead obvious. I can't believe there's any good faith in this discussion any more. Signing off.
What do you mean by that?