YouTube under no obligation to host anti-vaccine advocate’s videos, court says

While this may inspire some discussion, honestly this looks like a pretty boring, expected ruling. Effectively 1) YouTube and its users do indeed have a contract; 2) YouTube/Google lawyers, not being completely morons, have reserved considerable discretion to YouTube in associating with customers, how it moderates, and specifics in what services it offers; 3) There is no law to the contrary, and in fact the opposite, law supports this. The end.

First part is obvious, there is expressed offer/acceptance, mutual assent, consideration, legality, all the elements are there. Of course the ongoing relationship between YouTube and users of its services is contractual. Second part is, well, just read the ToS. They don't promise to put moderation decisions before some international committee or something. And they aren't offering a backup service. And to the third, acts of moderation are themselves expressive and First Amendment protected anyway, then on top of that 230 ensures YouTube is only considered the publisher of their own speech, not other people's speech, and do not lose liability protection if they exercise their 1A rights. Contract doesn't reserve anything to YT contrary to the law. Unless I'm missing something there isn't really anything else to it. High level distribution services make things more convenient for sure, but convenience is not a right. This isn't like a hard line monopoly common carrier disconnecting someone from the grid or net.

First amendement (for corporations) rights and Section 230 is a tough combination to beat in courts.

Youtube's market dominance should lead to it being regulated as a public utility.

Regardless of the topic at hand, this feels like the electric company refusing you service because they do not agree with your politics, or the mail refusing to deliver your letters because of your opinions.