You do realize there's a big difference between government censorship and the rules set by a private company, right?
Ah yes the common defense of the left. These tech companies are hardly merely private companies anymore. Google literally controls all the information we receive on the internet. They snuff out competitors and control everything we get to see. They monitor all our private messages and actively listen to us every second if our phone is nearby and monitor every single thing we do on the internet. They actively censor information for various governments around the world. They are working directly with governments to control our information. The fact that the left defends them as just private companies while simultaneously decrying powerful corporations is laughable hypocrisy. This is a serious issue that we shouldnt be shrugging off
That a handful of tech companies have extraordinary power over public discourse is a serious issue, yes. Hyperbole like "we're turning into China" isn't. If you don't understand that there's a huge difference between government censorship and censorship by private corporations, I don't know what else to tell you. The First Amendment protects you from government censoring your speech. It does not protect you from what private companies choose to do. If you don't like what large private companies choose to do, all you can do is regulate them or break them up. But right-wingers usually claim to be against both of those things. So what exactly is your solution?
So are you denying that companies like Google, Facebook and apple are working directly with governments to control the information that the citizens see? And you're still defending them as a "private company?"
In addition, Google and YouTube have specifically been given immunity by Congress as a platform from content on their platform. What this means is that if you commit a crime on their platform they are not responsible. An easy to understand example is someone using the telephone to call in a criminal threat does not result in charges against AT&T et al for being complicit with the caller. This immunity is granted in order to ensure a level playing field. All content is supposed to be treated equally.
However, that is far from the case. YouTube specifically is operating as a publisher, specifically choosing the content that can and will be allowed on its platform, but publishers are not allowed to be granted this immunity, only platforms. YouTube is literally having its cake and eating it too by operating as both and having no negative repercussions from being either.
Google and YouTube are already being regulated by the government and as such must follow those regulations, yet they are stepping outside of the bounds they have been granted. ---
Que sera, sera. Whatever happens, happens. ...and he was never heard from again.