[TomMckenny]

Note it is backwards to think that if a platform _fails_ to carry the regime's message then _the platform_ is impeding freedom rather than noting that it is _the government_ that is applying anti-freedom pressure on a dissenting _non government_ organization.

Youtube is _not_ the government but by reigning in falsehoods, is acting in _opposition_ to the government here. So what Youtube is doing is the very definition of _freedom_ of expression. A government pressuring them to carry pro-government messages is the crime, not the other way around.

You are now having the government and pro-government voices pressure non-government organizations to publish pro-government material while claiming that it "protects" freedom of speech. This the exact _opposite_ of freedom of speech, it is in fact forced propaganda.

So indeed there is no "but" because it is _the government_ that is in the wrong by pressuring publishers in what they must include.

[pestaa]

Finally, someone!

A private company doing content moderation & censorship is not a violation of the free speech amendment.

Freedom of expression is not freedom to use any platform or service -- it is protection against state level actors.