This seems very simplistic. YouTube is more than a company, it is a community of hundreds of millions of users and thousands of workers. People use YouTube not just for ability to search and share videos, or the recommendation engine, but for the user created content. The owner of the platform is the shareholders, and their designee, the CEO, is ultimately responsible for the decision. I don't think the broader definition of YouTube made this decision.

I think it's wrong to be okay with YouTube suppressing information and misinforming people about global pandemics just because they own the corporation and infrastructure YouTube is built on. YouTube is abusing their monopoly to hurt people.

People don't like government censorship and misinformation not because it's inherently wrong for government to do these things, but because censorship and misinformation create harm. When you consider YouTube's scale and lack of real competitor - it's obvious that their censorship and misinformation is also harmful and therefore problematic. Even if it's legal, it's certainly not moral.

You know its funny how I only see this argument when the service is doing something they agree with. When it's something they don't like there's suddenly outrage.

Remember a few years ago ISPs wanting to remove net neutrality and wanting to potentially charge for access to websites on "their platform"? Suddenly they're big enough to be a "public utility" and "invasion of free speech".

You can't have it both ways.

So if they make the wrong decisions and spread misinformation or fail to censor misinformation, can I sue them?

Why do they get the power but none of the responsibility? Is it just because they happen to agree with your worldview? And what if they don't -- what if they start banning videos that suggest Taiwan is a country? Would your opinion change?