Those are the only two options though because they either moderate or they don't... so what are you saying exactly?
I'm saying that the two I mentioned are absolutely absurd. Not even worth a conversation.
The one they're using is deferring their decision making to a source that, even if they're a bit flawed, is WAY WAY WAY better than themselves when figuring out what is worth keeping online.
Ok, fair enough. However, in your original post (which appears to be no longer visible) you stated that Youtube made this particular decision to censor accurate information in order to spread lies (with a "common good" purpose). I don't like that.