Conspiracy theories and disagreeable speech are still speech and are still protected, I understand not wanting to run ads against that content but advocating to memory-hole it altogether is the morally wrong argument.

People will choose what to ultimately watch and spent their time on, this insistence on shielding and infantilizing the general public is patronising, not to mention that there are no studies that would indicate any of the content is changing anyone's opinion, the few scientific studies on this "fake news" scare would suggest that mainstream outlets were and are the shapers of public opinion e.g. https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

The attacks on youtube are especially alarming with the scope of the censorship demands ever increasing with every new feature being blamed, first it was about running ads on obscure videos and the channels of "controversial" personalities and now they demand that the viewer not be suggested content that the author thinks is objectionable as though they are forces to watch it "A Clockwork Orange" style. I'm old enough to remember when this author and her peers were defending web firms against censorship attempts by governments around the world.