When you know that YouTube makes a statement like this,

extrait : "YouTube will remove content from politicians using its platform if their content violates the company’s guidelines, but some exceptions can be made if the videos have enough educational, news, scientific or artistic value."

you know that something is wrong, very wrong.

That YouTube does not bring a despicable video in their top search results or even in the automatically played or recommended videos, I see no problem with it, because the video is still there for anyone to find and see.

But that YouTube removes any video, on what grounds are they judiciary parts ? Of course YouTube, by behaving like this, will represent the bad will of political and religious militants, not the interest of the general public. This has profound implications for freedom of expression. Remember, video is not like text. You can put up a computer online and a blog, and put your text there. It's all yours period. But video is hard to host because of the bandwidth it demands to cast over more than one person at a time. So YouTube is always one of the defacto destinations for hosting videos due to technical difficulties of doing it yourself. This is the reason why YouTube should not have a say, especially made worse because this say is on behalf of militants most of the time, and just host the video and that's it.

If that isn't the case, then YouTube should make that clear in every page of the site that the videos they host are videos they enfully endorsed. Again, this has deep judicial implications and also questions the freedom of expression. Perhaps, after all, YouTube isn't the place you are looking for.