They are two different things, though. One is actually producing content, and the others deciding which content host and share. And there are all kinds of various legal and illegal combinations, here. For instance maybe they decide that it's okay to host Nazi content, something that is absolutely protected under the first amendment. Or maybe they decide that it's not okay to host Nazi content, even though it's definitely protected under the first amendment.

Also see Gonzales v. Google.

But really the most dangerous thing here is telling a company that they are legally liable for everything their users post. A large company like Google has the legal firepower to handle the massive onslaught of lawsuits that will instantly occur. A smaller startup thing? Not a chance. They're DOA.

Heck, even on my tiny traffic personal website, I would take the comment section down because there's no way I can handle a lawsuit over something somebody posted there.

I should not be required to host content I do not wish to host. And at the same time I must be shielded from liability from comments that people make on my website, if we are to have a comment section at all.

I think using the example of Nazi content and the first amendment is a distraction. What’s relevant is speech that is not legally protected.

Should the New York Times have civil libel liability for what they publish in a newspaper? Should Google have civil libel liability for what they publish on YouTube?

For me, the more pertinent question is should I be liable for not-legally-protected content people post to my comment section on my website?

> Should Google have civil libel liability for what they publish on YouTube?

They do.

What they don't have liability for, is content that users post to YouTube.

That’s my opinion:

If you exhibit pre-publication restraint, you’re an editor of an anthology — and not an information service hosting user content.

That would make sense if this were a math theorem, but law and liability and society don’t usually work like math.

Theee things can be true:

1. YT and similar give people a platform for speech

2. So long as they make a good faith effort to identify and remove content that is illegal, the hosted speech is not theirs.

3. As platform owner they are also free to exercise speech by moderating topics for any or no reason

What then is the distinction between YouTube and a newspaper?

In your analogy, YouTube is the paperboy and the video producer is the newspaper.

> The argument that removing videos is their speech implies that hosting videos is their speech.

There is no such implication because the first is an affirmative act based on their knowledge of the actual content and the other is a passive act not based on knowledge of that content.