Google censorship is more equal than other possibilities. They themselves have committed a lot lately compare to say owner did it. Purely based on perception, without any proof, I say your last statement is unlikely.
"More equal"? The idea that YouTube deleted some random videos that no one has ever heard of and then lied about it, is "more equal" than the idea that an organization whose stated position is basically "Google bad because censor" wants to make Google seem bad?
This was an academic channel conference that many people viewed. Perhaps not a popular channel for you but still worthy of existing.
I don’t think they’re questioning whether it’s worthy of existing, but rather why Google would choose to target this video specifically given that it has ~0 reach and the potential PR consequences of lying.
Sure, but in a sea of billions of views a day[0] YT isn't targeting specific channels - at this scale, there's going to be at least one moderation mistakes for every million views (and that's being generous).