Another take/view on this issue is that the minute these organization begin to make editorial decisions (i.e., decided what gets "published" or appears and what doesn't) then they should be considered publishers (like CNN, The New York Times, Newsweek, etc.) and thus can be exposed to libel, lawsuits for defamation.
Again, similar to what we've both said before, they are trying to have it both ways. Problem is, the authorities don't force the issue either way because they are using them to their advantage and for their own nefarious reasons of information dissemination (i.e., propaganda, controlling narratives for war, politics/elections, etc.), and ultimately control of the people.
I think when you are publishing on a site like youtube, it is more like being an independent contractor than an employee so ultimately you are still responsible for any libel. Having said that, youtube and other such sites CAN be held responsible for defamation if they do not react to such complaints in a timely manner. Such organizations have ALWAYS made editorial decisions just not necessarily for political reasons. At the end of the day, it is the advertisers that have the most influence because that is how the money is made and that was largely the case even before the internet.
Despite whatever youtube is doing, I think the situation today is far better than it used to be. It wasn't so long ago that three major news network along with a handful of major newspapers were the source of the vast majority of all news. Now the options are virtually unlimited.