I think it would be fine to say "as long as it isn't illegal (harassment, CP, copyright violation, etc. are not legal, so it falls under the umbrella), then let it be".
If it is something that isn't entirely clear (e.g., CP is pretty clear-cut, but harassment might not be), let the courts decide and make a decision based on what the courts say.
It sounds painfully obvious and simple, but I have a feeling I am definitely missing something important here, because that sounds way too easy.
I could make a video and state that Sandy Hook was a false flag and these parents are crisis actors. I don't have followers and influence, so my video wouldn't get many views and likely wouldn't instigate a call to harassment or violence.
But someone like Jones with a following did do that, and those families have gone through extended hell because of it.
The same is true with trying to spread lies about Omar marrying her brother. This is still commonly repeated across all mediums. Is it not an issue because she's a public figure? She receives death threats due to these types of veiled racism.
Should I be allowed to host a video openly slandering and lying about someone simply because I don't have enough people who follow me or because I'm not directly saying "attack this person"?
I feel like there's a lot to consider with their position. What do they gain by platforming hate speech and conspiracy theories? It affects their reputation (to some degree), but they still make some money off of the advertising.
For the record, I don't think Google should be policing content. But there are slippery ways to get around TOS. The "I'm just asking questions" defense muddies things, and people like Jones know that.
"Slander" is a legal term, and if someone feels like they were slandered through a youtube video, they are welcome to go through that legal channel, just like if they were slandered by someone on the street or through phone or elsewhere. That's the kind of matter that courts were designed for, so it would make sense to keep that issue there. We don't need bajillion private "courts" to dish out their own "totally not self-serving" flavors of justice, we should be using the one we pay taxes for and that has grounds in the federal judicial system.
This should increase the friction to the point where we don't have as many takedowns of videos that are not doing anything wrong, while still allowing for offenders like Alex Jones to get the justice they deserve and get their videos removed.
When it breaks established law, then that's the line.
Because what do they gain from leaving this stuff up? It hurts people. If their stated goal is to be a bastion of free speech, that's one thing. But they're not doing that. They're providing a service. Passively hosting and platforming harassment definitely doesn't fit in with their initial "don't be evil" ethos.
That is a hard position to be in, because they were effectively platforming targeted harassment. In addition to that, videos stating that Omar married her brother are still upon YT, as are flat earth explanations. One is a "harmless" conspiracy theory that ends up as a gateway into absurd things like Pizzagate, while the other is libelously spreading lies about a member of congress.
Where's the line? Because it doesn't appear as if there's one we all agree on.