Evicting professors and others from universities. Blocking access to social media. Closing down newspapers and other new outlets.
And it doesn't matter who's doing it. Erdogan. Carlos Maza. Antifa. None of them are doing anything constructive.
The government shutting down your youtube channel; that's a problematic infringement on speech; Google shutting down your channel, that's within their rights.
Currently google is treated as a platform, and does not take responsibility for the content users post to it, but that means that google also must have fair rules by which it treats everyones content. If google wants to decide which channel to shut down and which one to keep, it should not be treated as a platform, but as a publisher.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/sheriffs-threats-again...
The EFF does not defend Wikileaks when pressure was placed for hosting companies to withdraw services to them.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/how-lieberman-got-ama...
Only works for private entities in markets with a lot of competition and no dominance. Otherwise there is no difference whether a government does it or a private entity under pressure.
IIRC, it used to be the case that shopping malls were, in some situations, treated as public squares and couldn't just expel people. For example, if someone like Steven Crowder hypothetically set up his infamous "change my mind" table in the middle of the mall, the mall actually didn't have the legal power to expel him. This was in the era when a lot of towns didn't actually have a real public square, they just had shopping malls, and the landowners of the shopping malls had an effective commercial monopoly on the city square.
YouTube is in a very similar situation. And frankly, it's not even just the outwardly political channels like Crowder that are getting the short end of the stick.