I suggest everyone read this fellow's Wikipedia article:
He can be his own distributor that’s the power of the internet.
Yes, I fully agree with you that they have the right to remove whatever content they want. And I absolutely don't want that right to be taken away from them. However, I disagree with how they are currently utilizing that power, even though they have full rights to do so.
It's kind of similar to how I support the 2nd amendment rights and don't want them to be taken away from people (including open carry). But I disagree with how certain people use it during protests by open-carrying at the airports or in front of the city council building.
The government would probably go out of it’s way to make sure “Focus on the Family” content would be allowed but not “Black Lives Matter” just like they shut down the government in Michigan but the same conservatives passed laws for stricter gun control when minorities started exercising their 2nd amendment rights (the Mulliford Act).
But it doesn't mean that I cannot be upset at youtube for exercising their rights in ways that I disagree with. Mind you, I am not calling for a legal action against them or to change laws pertaining to those rights. I am just expressing that they shouldn't be exercising their rights in such a way, but they should still have the legal right to do so. Mostly because I believe that the unintended consequences of regulating that will be much worse (same with gun control).
That wasn't the question. The question was should they be banned?
I'd say no.
Passive voice makes the situation seem more universal and nefarious than it actually is.
"Do you think that such people should be banned from sleeping in houses"? No, but I think I should be allowed to decide who sleeps in my house.