Part of the fight is the question are these outlets platforms or publishers
That’s a very good point. The tension is that websites such as youtube are cyber places where the public goes to publish their content. It is not like a privately owned store where the public goes with the purpose to purchase and the property owner has authority restrict 1A on his property or a private meeting place such as church where the public is invited and 1A is also restricted, or a newspaper that publishes whatever content it likes. A newspaper is not open to the public although it could choose to publish any content submitted by someone that is not an employee. However, websites such as youtube is where members of the public go to publish views and content and that is why it might be legally classified as both a platform and a publisher. That’s just the nature of it. The website is liable for what it publishes but since it can also be viewed as a public place -that is to say a platform because members of the public go there with the purpose of disseminating speech, in the US, the law may require the site (although privately owned ) not to discriminate or deny service based on 1A standards. The principle is that since all members of the public can go to the site (it’s open to the public) with the purpose to publish their views, the owners of the site may not be legally allowed to discriminate some people because they don’t like them but need to have legal reasons not private ones.