If someone has 99% of the market and there is no publicly available (i.e. to anyone) competing service, it effectively turns into free speech limitation (not legally, just effectively).
Let's say people watched 99% of video on youtube. I guess that's inconvenient if you can't do your thing on youtube, but that's not a lack of free speech, it is a lack of attention.
Free speech doesn't guarantee that if I go shout on a street corner I'll get as much attention as youtube or any other street corner. It has always been that way.
Of course it does, somebody whether it is a nation or a website or a piece of paper has to host your speech. Otherwise it will just be thoughts inside your brain.
No, it doesn't. You are not entitled to a platform. You are entitled to safety from the government when you say objectionable things (under most conditions).
A newspaper doesn't have to publish your op-ed. YouTube doesn't have to host your video. You can make a website for free to get your point across without going through Youtube, so they're not silencing you either. Not in a free speech sense.
Saying “how long before X?” is just the slippery slope fallacy. “Freedom of Speech” (at least in the US) means the government can’t take away your right to say something. As far as I know, people can still claim vaccines cause autism. They can even still do it on Youtube, apparently. They just can’t make money doing it, at least on that one (non-governmental) platform.
uhmm, OK so it's "only" demonetization, but it's driven by Big Business.
How long before Big Business decides who is allowed the right of Free Speech and who is not?
Just sayin...