The very best you could possibly expect from them is to include "science our advertisers don't hate" in recommendations.
The problem seems to be if the content goes against certain narratives, it then gets flagged.
You wanna talk about hormones doing or not doing something for you. Go for it. Sugar is bad or good. Go for it. It questions certain narratives pushed by certain interests... nah ah ah.
That strategy is obviously successful, which is disheartening to me. But I’m not sure how to argue against it.
Discovering an algorithm to govern on-site activity by the general public that doesn't lift the scum to the top could be a decent start.
YouTube made it so easy to upload video to their site instead that vast swaths of the population now seem to have forgotten that you can also upload video to your own site.
If a medical researcher has something to say: they could upload it to their university's site, or to their own personal site, or to the web site of whatever conference they want to present their talk at. Upload it to their blog, and then share the post's URL...
YouTube's policies deserve scrutiny and probably criticism. But I think it's a dead-end argument to say that mistakes in YouTube's policies can entirely stop a video from being disseminated online.