I have no idea how this self-stroking "award" can be taken seriously by those who actually monitor freedom of speech (excluding porn, which I don't consider 'speech').
Under a more expansive concept of free speech, where we include things like monopoly market power or illegal use of force as government action; then you could argue that YouTube does censor things due to their large size. It's genuinely difficult to start your own video site and speak without being buried in hosting fees; so I think it's useful to talk about them censoring things in some contexts. However, we've also strayed far away from the First Amendment.
Outside of those concepts; however, I don't think the word "censorship" is very useful. If Hacker News decides to ban me, I can go to many thousands of other private forae in order to speak. Perhaps we should use the term "para-censorship" to refer to these situations in which third parties decide to refuse to do business with you.
What's surprising is they haven't disabled comments for that video. Kudos to them I guess.
The moment they do and it seems to be helping the opponents of Youtube's preferred candidates (which they have made clear that they have), those foreign dissenters will get flushed down the algorithmic memory hole too.