Traditional media publications like Time magazine are direct competitors of YouTube. Their strategy here is to push this narrative that content platforms should act like active content editors/curators and be held to the same standard. A piece like this is infuriating to read if you take it at face value.

> Their strategy here is to push this narrative that content platforms should act like active content editors/curators and be held to the same standard.

Except this isn't just a "narrative" being pushed by Time; YouTube explicitly wants the power to curate and actively uses that power in their business model: they curate ("recommend") videos to optimize engagement. If they want to wield editorial power, they are need to be held responsible for the consequences of their exercise of that power.

The traditional way to avoid this problem is to make the platform into a common carrier that explicitly and visibly segregates itself away from anything that might be seen as using editorial power. The post office isn't held responsible for someone mailing a threatening letter because they just delivered the (sealed) letter and couldn't know anything about the content.

> direct competitors

Yes, as a publication that can be held responsible for their editorial decisions, Time would like YouTube to be held to the same standard.

What's the argument that youtube isn't actively edited or curated?

It's not unusual, it's just that I guess the "old" media expects Google to actively adjust algorithms to control narrative just like they do. For better or for worse.

Plenty can be said about bad social influences of modern quackery and different types of anti- movements.

I think the complaint is that Google is "actively adjusting algorithms to control narrative" -- just in a direction that directly violates the overwhelming consensus of scientists in the field, common sense and any sense of self-preservation humanity might still exhibit.

It's currently a bigger threat to human welfare than most things they ban, so platforms that exert editorial control in accordance with mainstream morals should do more about it.

An interesting topic is that since they ban some positive everyday-life things, to what extent should they (as perceived by the audience) have a burden of impartiality in the spirit of free discourse in the open society?