>It's very sad to see how people blame and thrash services like youtube instead of respecting the fact that all of it is provided absolutely free of cost.

It is absolutely not free of cost. Google wouldn't be able to sustain if they were not receiving anything in return.

In this exchange, however, you don't know the value you're contributing; there is no clear value exchange: "I'll give you $x.xx for use of such-n-such." Instead you're expected to believe that what they provide you is fair for the value you provide them.

Youtube gets their content free of costs and sometimes they ban that content like these live streams. I think banning something is a pretty decisive form of criticism.

Providing something for free (even if in this case, you do pay in many ways) is not a shield from criticism. You can't compare a free service to no service but instead have to compare it to the possible alternative reality where that particular free service does not exist. This is distinction is especially important for areas where network effects effectively prevent any alternatives from gaining traction.

Whenever something is given free of cost to you, you are the product. Not the other way around.

I'm quite sure that I'm actually paying for YouTube.