I definitely agree.

Yet when a platform like YouTube deletes accounts and publicly announces the censoring of information that doesn't conform with the Ministry of Information(aka the World Health Organization), there's no mystery that they're violating people's rights.

Not promoting the video in their algorithm would basically accomplish the same functional difference as censorship. Ditto for any platforms that can demote content from their ranking.

Like I said, I [mostly] agree. However, there's precedence that publishers be free to pick and choose the content that they publish. Even if it isn't fair, this is a concept that's already existed at various scales for hundreds of years. To single out YouTube for censorship-by-curation would be much more difficult than to guard against them for blatant abuses.

I'll give you an analogy. In America, businesses can't pick and choose people on the basis of their skin color or their sex. Obviously, discrimination in hiring still exists to some degree, but because it's covert or the result of implicit biases, there's a limited number of things you can do to address that discrimination. On the other hand, if the PR for a fast food chain goes on TV and says that the company only hires white people, that's unambiguous and has no conflict with the rights of the corporation.

Perhaps someone should analyse and pop such filter bubbles instead. We all know US gov is incapable going to bathroom by their own, so perhaps EU could step in and require platforms to publish such filter bubbles. I'm fairly sure most platforms actually curate the bubbles already.

IMHO EU should work on disinformation harm reduction strategy. Similarly how some members deal with drug addicts - contact people infected with bullshit and try to set them straight. I guess that (public mental health) would sound too dystopian for HN crowd.