You have not actually provided evidence to the contrary, instead went for a string of logical fallacies.
YouTube is arguing that I shouldn't be able to provide evidence to the contrary, which is the point.
I'm not arguing with the list of bullet points. I'm arguing with the very silly implication that there is an obvious "truth" that some MegaCorp should be able to hand down and enforce on this.
Correct. But it's tantamount to saying "you can't speak in this public square, how about you pretend your front yard is a public square and speak there."
Eventually, people are going to say the hell with that and that Google's "private" management of 90% of inbound searches and content is, in fact, public.
After that, maybe we can start calling it Gov-gle or something once it's nationalized.
Maybe Youtube gave the misconception that they were a public square when they weren't moderating as heavily.
Welp. Time to get rid of Section 230 then!
Apparently these companies aren't neutral carriers and should be held liable for what they censor in their editorial discretion.