It's the standard in most of the world. In parts of europe, you could go to jail for political speech and the media is tightly controlled.
> They must be very careful not to let the narrative become "we don't bias our results, we swear!" (even if it's true)
You know it's true.
"Facebook, YouTube, and the like are publishers.
As a society, we did not have qualms before the internet about publishers declining to amplify the views of people like Alex Jones. Even in the absence of YouTube's support, he arguably has far more of a voice now than he did in the pre-internet days, before he could host his own website. He has that on top of all the traditional means of communication he always had, which includes passing out flyers and yelling in the street.
It is the responsibility of information disseminators to curate their content. Nobody is going to jail over these editorial choices, so the notion that this is a constitutional issue is pure hysteria. YouTube and Facebook are finally stepping up to the responsibility they have long owed us from the beginning."
Why don't you have any principles or consistency? You support corporate censoring when people you dislike gets censored. You support government censorship when people you you gets censored. Is that a bit hypocritical?