Because they're de facto not just a public space but a vital part of the public discourse. Court-like processes are the appropriate standard for decisions about the use of something that affects so many people.

> de facto not just a public space

Could you explain what you mean by "public space"?

> vital part of the public discourse

I don't agree. In my view, YouTube is one of the lowest forms of public discourse, its fundamental purpose is to generate ad revenue and the nature of the content hosted there reflects this pernicious incentive. Yes, YouTube does have some great things on it, but it's just one tiny facet of "the public discourse".

> Court-like processes are the appropriate standard for decisions about the use of something that affects so many people.

Can you quantify "affects" and "so many people"? YouTube is mostly an entertainment triviality, even (especially) in the realm of politics, I don't see how videos being removed from the site is important.

> In my view, YouTube is one of the lowest forms of public discourse, its fundamental purpose is to generate ad revenue and the nature of the content hosted there reflects this pernicious incentive.

You could say the same for all media. Television is advertising-driven, radio is advertising-driven, even the most respectable of literary magazines is advertising-driven. Most content is pandering to someone or other.

> Can you quantify "affects" and "so many people"? YouTube is mostly an entertainment triviality, even (especially) in the realm of politics

Again, you could (and many would) say the same for television or what have you. It would still be corrosive to society if a single entity controlled the majority of television, or the majority of radio, or... - and that's much the situation that YouTube is in.

> You could say the same for all media. Television is advertising-driven, radio is advertising-driven, even the most respectable of literary magazines is advertising-driven. Most content is pandering to someone or other.

I don't necessarily disagree, but what's your point?

> It would still be corrosive to society if a single entity controlled the majority of television, or the majority of radio, or... - and that's much the situation that YouTube is in.

This is already the case. Additionally, I don't think you've demonstrated that YouTube's video moderation policy is "corrosive to society"

You can refuse to remove content without a court order even if you're legally allowed to remove it without one. Why should they choose to create a bad user experience by removing content via algorithms? They could just not.

> Why should they choose to create a bad user experience by removing content via algorithms

Removing obscene, explicit, and even illegal content is only practical at YouTube's scale using algorithms, the idea that they should just abandon algorithmic removal of videos entirely is not a realistic suggestion.

Is it only possible using algorithms or is it just more profitable using algorithms?

Both. Yet, even if it were only motivated by profit, YouTube is an ad delivery business, its only purpose is profit.