Youtube will filter on some blackbox intersection of heightened speech that has the potential to rile people up on the one hand, and a balance of cases such that Republicans cannot grandstand in Congressional testimony that Google is targeting the right.

So Jimmy Dore-- who generally yells, is unpleasant, and calls people names as he spews truths (mixed with the occasional naive opinion)-- might hit the filter. Or some boring socialist collective that nobody's heard of, like that case that Dorsey clearly used just so he'd have the name of a left-leaning organization that Twitter had banned.

Another way to say this: I do believe in "more speech" as a way to fight "bad speech," but if "more speech" does not include the freedom to read, understand, modify, and publish modifications of the recommendation algos that prime over a hundred million people then it's a dangerously constrained and misleading debate.

Furthermore-- if we depend on the "temporary" solution of trusting the companies to do cherry-picked bans to appease hundreds of millions of users, the companies will use all their data, money, and connections to paint that as a long term solution and leverage it to their bigger fight against monopoly regulation.