Yes. As I think that it is quite obvious the majority of current AI is only superficially designed to help me, while fundamentally they are designed quite successfully to f#ck me and get my money, I have occasionally tried to figure out ways to somehow level the playing field against the current crop of AI, but it is difficult. One of the only tools actually having any effect is adblocking. And if I engage in that, I am blamed that I strip content creators of their income. I guess the fundamental problem is that nobody has any economic incentive to fight against the current AI army, while a large bunch of people seem to actually enjoy getting manipulated (to buy unnecessary stuff or get radicalized to some fringe ideology) by our machine overlords.
It's not so much about taking the videos down, as the recommendation algorithms pushing people in the extremist direction.
If someone doesn't have the cognitive abilities to consider the veracity of a video that's on them. Let me watch what I want.
I am completely in favor of the internet as an uncensored communications platform. However, in a war of ideas, there is a giant chasm between making a propaganda video of any sort available to watch in an archive and showing the stickiest propaganda video to those who are most likely to be retained watching it.
When I was at NIPS last year, the only person I heard get really angry about something, from an ethical standpoint, was relating to deep fakes. If you are a researcher or a project developer, you need to think really hard about what you are building, because soon you won't be the one building it.
edit: I don't think YouTube should solely be singled out for bad recommendations. Netflix has a lot of junk science on their platform and my assumption is their algorithms are bumping it to the top. In their case they have to proactively go out and pay for licensing for those videos, which is really inexcusable.