> "...but her beef with Youtube is entirely justified."

I am curious as to how we concluded that? Until now, we have only heard her side of the story, and not that of YouTube. May be she was violating ToS? There could be thousands of well-justified reasons for YouTube to terminate her account.

Without hearing the other side of the story, how do we know that her beef was entirely justified?

And, of course, there is the usual argument that YouTube is a platform owned by a private entity. Nobody has a justifiable right to put their video on YouTube and earn revenue from it.