> That's not something legally recognized though.
We're having a discussion about what the law should be, not what the law is.
> You can't say you base this on something when there is nothing equivalent.
The above discussion demonstrates that our society already limits property rights in the service of an informed populace, which is relevant to the issue at hand.
> An education is one thing. It's something that's been recognized in court.
Courts have recognized ballot fraud in the past as well, its not some outlandish theory. Its why people are supposed to maintain chain of custody of the ballots.
> you'll have to explain how that equates with your established rights in the US?
Corporations are chartered by the government in exchange for certain privileges and limitations. We already infringe on property rights because an informed population is a public good. QED there is a precedent for requiring a public corporation to host certain kinds of content. For example, foods are required to meet labeling requirements.
> More to the point: You'll have to explain why you want to take away my rights?
The right to remove content is potentially dangerous to democracy. See recent events, where a bunch of trump supporters are ever more convinced that an election was stolen because people keep claiming there was no evidence and YouTube has a policy where they state they won't allow anyone to post the evidence that the Biden camp says doesn't exist.
> my rights?
As a GOOG shareholder, you exchanged certain rights for other privileges when the government chartered your corporation and allowed it to traded on the public market while limiting your liability for criminal acts that might be performed by Google employees. In a sense you are taking the benefit of profit and legally protected from liability for the actions that might generate that profit. That arrangement comes at a cost of increased regulation by the government.