Will the users care?
I'll just assume you meant "most people" here, because otherwise it's not an useful argument.
Then this would only be true if one of the following applies:
a. The position you consider "better" can't withstand criticism. (Which I'll just assume you don't believe.)
b. Most people don't want to be a good person. (Probably untrue.)
c. What constitutes a good person is not consistent in your circles and most people have a different understanding. (Unlikely?)
d. Most people can't think for themselves.
Assuming you believe d., let me tell you that most people are probably smarter than you think and are indeed able to think critically. Don't extrapolate from a few noisy but bad examples of humanity.
You can find plenty of detailed rebuttals to the theories you subscribe to and I invite you to seek them out and consider the other side of the argument.
Your other responses (I strongly agree with) tell me you haven't really looked into it.
By Tuesday you mean the WTC attacks?
I spent the better part of three years listening to someone who tried to convince me of the false-flag POV.
I'm still in the camp of I don't know and I don't care though, because it's not even my country and either way the weather forecast is gonna have a bigger influence on my life.
As for the Holocaust, you'll have a hard time convincing me since I'm German and there's still enough evidence of it here to drown yourself in if you so please (or touch with your bare hands if archives are not your thing). Also I guess my grandparents (or their parents) and virtually every older person with first or second-hand knowledge would have to be lying to me.
So yeah... that position is pretty untenable here. It's like if your distant uncle from France tried to convince you your arbor doesn't exist when it's right there outside your window in Arizona and your granddad can still tell you stories of his father building it.
Your french uncle would have to be damn convincing on the phone.
Association, where there is none, is a very effective way to poison the well and change the subject. I'm not suggesting you did either on purpose, it's clear you are being candid and relaying your experience.
Note I said nothing (anywhere... ever) about the unrelated older historical event you brought up. Indeed, I bet we agree.
Wait... what was 1, 2, and 7 referring to then? I just numbered the topics in the order they were brought up in the original article.
Cool. So YouTube will force that group of people off their platform and magnify the intensity of their echo chamber in the process.
To many of those "problematic" videos other people have created detailed responses explaining why they are misguided. Now the other group won't see those rebuttals because they're on a different platform.
Thanks to what passes for a "good" recommendation engine nowadays people are already mostly subjected to content they already agree with - instead of content that might challenge their views and make them a better person.
This will continue until nobody's opinion is challenged ever (and doing so won't be socially acceptable in any case). I hope to never see the kind of society this leads too, but I fear we might be entering the endgame sooner rather than later.