The article answers this:

> YouTube, which is owned by Google, confirmed to The Intercept that it deleted the groups’ accounts as a direct result of State Department sanctions against the group after a review.

Yes, according to the article. That argument is made over and over in it, it’s hard to miss. “Forcing” doesn’t just mean directly requiring the action, it also means the threat of “this is not going to end up well for you if you don’t comply”. Of course, you can argue that Google could and should fight it, but that doesn’t change what the government is doing.

> but a social media site censoring what they don't want to host seems like fair game.

Again, the article makes it really clear they are doing this as the direct result of government actions.

The problem is that in practice, if you can't do YouTube, Facebook, Tiktok, INsta, etc... your speech will not be heard by anyone. It's like if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, the fact that it makes sound is irrelevant. So effectively, it amounts to censorship, even though the government potentially had no hand in it.

Now imagine someone in Trump administration pressured Google with a juicy contract, or the prospect of an expensive lawsuit, and the quid pro quo was dumping these videos that annoy "our Israeli friends". This kind of "pay to play" is at minimum corruption. It may also fall of short of constitutional guarantees for free speech. Ironically, it is exactly the same thing a lot of members of the Trump administration have accused Biden of doing (exhibit: the so called "Twitter Files" etc... ), although I don't believe this went anywhere in federal courts (am I wrong?)

I honestly don't know what the answer is. But I would not be surprised if in 50 years time, some of these large companies get regulated as "utilities" and are no longer able to yank "videos" from their platform just because they feel like it. And every time they "abuse" their powers, I feel like we get an inch closer to that onerous regulation.

nitpick - Youtube is bound by the US Constitution, it is the highest law of the land. 1A[1] is only about binding the government/congresses power though so youtube is not bound by 1A.

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

When the government pressures companies to censor Constitutionally protected speech, that is a First Amendment violation. If it weren't, the First Amendment would have no practical meaning.

The lesson to draw from Gaza is that if you become inconvenient to "the people in power" tomorrow, you would meet the exact same fate.

Look, you've forgotten it otherwise you wouldn't ask this question.

The internet is still decentralized today.

That already exists. They're called onion sites. What we really need is something that performs about as well as the current Internet, but is stronger against deplatforming: decentralized DNS. It doesn't even need to give memorable names like DNS does, it just needs to be a second, stable addressing layer on top of IP so clients can always find the server.

gab, voat and the others simply gave up when the convenient providers did not want to deal with their bullshit

YT is not the hosting provider of record, even if it looks like it sometimes (I guess no one is)

>A film or video clip which involves a real non-acted murder.

It seems like any video depicting a real murder would count as snuff. In any case, has YouTube ever allowed either kind?

People that are mad about the death of their revolution, developed an inferiority complex, looked at propaganda on TikTok and are now disliking Jews. You can argue the position to be more sophisticated, but sometimes it is not and it wouldn't be the first time.

And of course there is ample and valid criticism of policies of Israel but I heavily doubt that these videos were informative. Granted, this is entirely based on some assumptions.