Neither are cakes. But people on left celebrating Facebook for doing what they want on their platform - seem quite similar to the people on the left also trying to get a baker forced to make a cake.
Can't have it both ways.
(edited for clarity)
Your position is a bit like saying "Some people claim they're OK with the US/UK having nuclear weapons, but not North Korea. Can't have it both ways." or "Some people want charities to be tax exempt but not businesses. Can't have it both ways." or "Some people want gun control for civilians but not for the military. Can't have it both ways." Yes, many policies apply differently to different people for different reasons! That's a good thing.
All your examples ultimately boil down to force and have little to do with what ought to be.
Do you have any data on this question? Or is this just a blind assumption that "people who disagree with me on X probably also disagree with me about Y"?
And, yet, content creators must upload their content to YouTube or someone else will--even if they host it somewhere else.
Therefore, YouTube is either a monopoly or a bad-faith actor--your choice--and we will, unfortunately, need laws to bring YouTube to heel.
And no part of this statement strikes you as a problem?
That's just doing business in the current economy. You either have to ignore it or actively deal with it. Neither option will totally eliminate it.
FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life.
They aren't even fundamental to gaining an audience. Lots of businesses[1] manage to turn handsome profits without advertising on those platforms.
[1] And that's what infowars/milo are -- businesses looking for make a profit by producing social commentary and then selling ad space / books / videos / merch for more than it costs to produce the commentary.