Nope. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...
It would be extremely naive to not believe that YouTube not only knows they have this level of control, but are actively seeking to exploit it. Assuming they are a rational actor this is precisely what they would be doing.
EDIT:
What I am saying is simply this: if their aim is to remove controversial characters then remove all of them. If they selectively ban controversial characters that identify with only one side of the horseshoe, then they are manipulating public opinion.
Is David Icke a right winger? A nut and probably an anti-Semite ya, I would agree with that.
Would it be ok then for left wing nuts to get the boot also? Or only certain political leanings get booted with the cheering section saying "good"!
If you truly do believe in a table for rational discussion all ideas should be considered regardless of how far-out they may seen. By banning various controversial figures from one side, but allowing other controversial figures from the other side to continue, is diametrically opposed to the idea of "open discussion" you claim to be supporting in your argument.
You may not care. But then you are not a proponent of free speech on a platform. When the platform becomes a global nerve center for content the argument "they are a private company and can do what they want" must be looked at with significantly more scrutiny. It would be extremely naive to not believe that YouTube not only knows they have this level of control, but are actively seeking to exploit it.