I don’t see where one would have to move with their family. The case is about a private entity having a “space” with a reach to the public. I find it is a pretty appropriate comparison (in this case the company has a monopoly on the only boardwalk in the whole world, “moving” would mean convincing not only your family but millions (billions?) of people at the same time).

The digital town square is where the people are at. Moving to other streaming sites is more like having your expression relegated to some dusty back road.

If YouTube wants to be editor over the content they host, then they ought to be subject to the same liabilities as a publisher. If they want to be considered a platform then should be forced to remain neutral. The conflation of these mutually exclusive roles serves money at the expense of everyone else.

I agree, I feel like they should host pretty much anything. But they are absolutely responsible for what they promote, since their algorithms select what to recommend. This makes it impossible to remain "neutral". And they are also responsible for effects their algorithms have on society. At the very least will less people want to work for a company who caused the next civil war by spreading divisive content.

Freedom of Speech is not the Obligation to be Heard, nor is it the Freedom to Exploit Private Businesses to Promote Your Opinion.

The case cited was one where a piece of land was being used, passively, by individuals requiring no unique support or upkeep by owner in order for the plaintiffs to enjoy those freedoms. To make it relevant to YouTube, the court would have had to rule that the private business was required to provide shade, iced tea in sweet and unsweet varieties, as well as free megaphones.