content: So the argument against that is that YouTube and other such companies are using safe harbor laws, which requires them to be a "platform" not a "publisher". Basically, YouTube isn't legally liable for what gets posted because they are just a "platform", that their users are what are liable for their videos, and as long as YouTube doesn't knowingly host the illegal content, safe. The argument as of late is that Youtube's attempts at curation as of late overstep these lines and puts them strictly as a "curator". Thus, they're now not just a hoster of videos, they're an explicit publisher.