You don't have a right to service from a private company. Why are people so surprised and or angered by this?
The law is clear: you can be denied service as long as the reason you are being denied is not your sex, religion, etc. [Protected classes].
If you go to a restaurant and they don't like you they can throw you out, and so can a hardware store, and a movie theater, etc. (Exempting the protected reasons).
Find another service.
This makes sense. Why should a company be forced to allow people on their property? Or use their property? They shouldn't be forced, as long as they're not discriminating.
Whenever people make "the new decentralized YouTube" or whatever, everyone cuts them down and say "nobody wants that, they just want an easy centralized service with everything". At some point we have to accept that's what we've gotten in nearly every field: 2-3 monolite providers that control the market.
If people want that, then fine, but they can't then be regulated as if we had a vibrant decentralized market. We need democratic control and certain guarantees rights.
People are surprised and or angered by this because they aren't as clear on the law as you are. It's understandable, and they need help to better understand how it works.
With that in mind, got any other services that would be replacements?
Why do people always ask "What other privately owned service I don't have control over can I use?" instead of asking "How can I make my own platform that I have control over?".
Peertube, off the top of my head, would be the exact tool for the job.
Note that even if there are no replacements, a private business can still refuse to provide you with service. It could be the only restaurant in town, and the next town might be 85 miles away and you might not have a car. Under US law, that's your problem, not the restaurant's.
Those rules were written when you could find another service. Nowadays communication platforms are too centralised to be allowed to remove content at will.
The other issue here is the person was banned for life from using YouTube, which is a far cry beyond having some of his content removed for not fitting the platform.
With great power comes great responsibility. The banhammer is being wielded too sloppily and that is hurting people in real ways, because parts of the web are now of central importance to daily life. Private companies in other sectors that can similarly impact people's lives are regulated in what they can do to their customers.
The law is clear: you can be denied service as long as the reason you are being denied is not your sex, religion, etc. [Protected classes].
If you go to a restaurant and they don't like you they can throw you out, and so can a hardware store, and a movie theater, etc. (Exempting the protected reasons).
Find another service.
This makes sense. Why should a company be forced to allow people on their property? Or use their property? They shouldn't be forced, as long as they're not discriminating.