I am confused. How can a company locking someone out, or removing their monetization be classified as "free speech". It seems that is definitely "censorship". Same with "freedom of association" how can you associate when you are locked out? "Property rights" has no place here, ecause if youwant to claim YouTube has the right to reject, then it is totally against it's premise that it is an open platform for all creators of content, and the content is the property of the creators, YT is a vehicle. In fact, YT is a classic looter, it takes the bulk of the money made and keeps it giving the content creators little at all, the ads are in the content, not in You Tube.

"Uh, business as usual? Capitalism?"
Yes.

It's also called, "free speech."
It's also called "freedom of association."
It's also called "property rights."

And just individual rights in general.

Uh, forgive my ignorance here, but if YouTube "demonetizes" or even outright bans people because they "violated" the nebulous terms of of use, AND they happen to all be conservatives, that is called??? Uh, business as usual? Capitalism?

Exactly.
I can't up vote because the religious leftists that seem to be dominant on this Objectivist forum have down voted me so much.

Censorship is a concept that applies only to government action. A private company cannot "silence" anyone; it can only refuse to help. Conservatives who demand laws to force companies to serve speech they disagree with are violating property rights and are themselves advocating censorship.

No, Peter, they are using the platforms doing the same thing as everyone else. The companies are censoring them claiming "hatespeech" as the catch all excuse.If you see the video, there are specific example of leftists using real hatespeech, and that they are not censored, on all platforms. They are not saying censor the platforms, they are saying open them up. The excuse of the left is the infamous "white supremacists" that do not exists, except for the 38 of them in the little groups that meet in closets and talk old nazi victories. If YouTube cuts Crowder, then they need to cut a good 50% of their participants, all of whom are speaking one side or the other. Yet they only have been demonetizing the conservatives. When you silence a particular group, that is referred to as "censorship".

All stand before the sensing eye of the honorable judge HAL.

“Please be seated Dave.”

“All the privileges, none of the responsibilities”

Sounds like a leftist dream.

Yes but that's not what's happening here.
On this particular issue, conservatives are actually advocating for regulating tech companies because they disagree with them politically.
In other words, to censor them.
All the while advocating that they are fighting censorship.
What makes this worse is not that they are trying to trick anyone, but that they are doing this simply because they don't understand the concepts involved at all.

"What you are ignoring is that tech companies are strongly biased to promote the agenda of the left while hypocritically controlling - yes censoring - the same from conservatives."
No, that's called, "free speech."
It's also property rights, freedom of association and individual rights in general.

Only the government can censor you.

Exactly, and there is no legal requirements as to how those AI are to be programmed. So, you can set it to kill off anything that mentions "Q", or "Conservative" and who knows, or controls it, so it is fair?

Again, it becomes something that SCOTUS will ultimately have to decide, because the question is: Is YouTube, as a business,allowed that privilege? Remember, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically was jiggered to give immunity to YouTube, Google, and other from defamation and liable lawsuits because "they serve the public good". So, they have a special set of rules, and no one has ever defined their responsibilities. All the privileges, none of the responsibilities, it appears to be.

Even the basic right of business owners to be able to refuse to service anyone, is under brutal attack. This all stems from the far left, which the left seems to be moving toward.

Tech companies cannot engage in control or censorship? Who says that? Because they definitely are. Even the basic American definition of a censor is,
“A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.”
But in these days programmed AIs are in control of the censoring, And they have been judging and executing their sentencing without trial.

Just remember folks, there is a 1st amendment right involved. It does not give any authorization to control what one says, or how, and that is what is at stake here, ESPECIALLY when it is on a platform built to specifically facilitate that Amendment. That is Tucker's point, you used to be able to go to the town square and say what you wanted, and should have been assured of no interference. Nowadays, you cannot do it ANYWHERE without some knuckle headed snowflake screaming how you hurt their feelings and a mob of morons screaming at you so loud as to disable your ability to express yourself. That happens all the time at Campuses, with conservatives blown out by whining herd of liberal snowflakes screaming the typical labels used "racist, homophobe, anti-abortionist" etc. Does YouTube have a right to censor people on a platform they created specifically to enable speech? That should be a SCOTUS issue. Just because they are a business does not give them special protections, in fact, I would say the individual outranks the company in that realm.

Individuals or companies can advocate for statism and censorship, and should be denounced for it when they do, but they can't engage in it privately unless they are collaborating with government. "Censorship" only applies to government actions, not private restrictions on one's own private property. Facebook (and google and others) are currently lobbying Congress for government restrictions on free speech. They want "guidelines" on "extreme" speech in an attempt to suppress controversy over their own actions.

We can understand the distinction between private and government action, but Zuckerberg and facebook do not, which obscures and confuses defense of facebook's rights when not done carefully.

Rubbish.

What you are ignoring is that tech companies are strongly biased to promote the agenda of the left while hypocritically controlling - yes censoring - the same from conservatives.

Wonder if you were protecting their "rights" so intensely had it been implemented to benefit the other side?

Tech companies cannot engage in any "statist," "control," or "censorship" activities. Only the government can do that.
We may disagree with YouTube but their rights to do so must be protected.
Anyone failing to do so, is the one on the side of statist, censorship and control. Among numerous other rights violations.

Sinking deeper and deeper into Gestapo and KGB methods.

Google, YouTube, FB, are not there to uphold First Amendment rights.

It is the same censorship as banning speakers from campus who have a different view that the left espouses.

"Control and censorship"
Typical hypocritical statist and neo-liberal actions by the digital elite.