Note all the attempts in the article to paint them as "armed" and "extremists". There was no violence, no destruction of property. It was a legal demonstration until it was made illegal by invoking the Emergencies act. And this use of the law in my opinion was an abuse as it clearly is for terrorist threats. Not Canadian working class people peacefully demonstrating.
But I don’t see how that’s related to the discussion about YouTube suspending a channel.
Blocking a nation's highways and borders for weeks is not legal.
People screamed blue-bloody-murder when BLM and Occupy protesters chained themselves to barrels across interstates, disrupting traffic for an hour or two...but the Canadian government tolerates a complete shutdown of a border, along with near continuous public disturbance for weeks - before finally clearing the protesters, and that's somehow an example of oppression?
The Canadian truckers picked up the trash. I never saw a cleaner protest.
EDIT>> My mistake, censorship falls clearly under Orwell
But to actually answer your comment:
1. A company removing proven disinformation is quite far from what censorship is. Also not really something that would be considered dystopian.
2. I would disagree that Orwell work is about “censorship is bad”. His work is IMHO more about exploring risks caused by attempt to do population surveillance and control. Spreading lies and falsehood consistently to destroy any understanding of an actual situation, the way Trump does by lying about election fraud, is way closer to the Orwellian nightmare than YouTube removing that content.
From the article: > The Hill’s channel is unable to upload new videos for seven days, although its older videos can still be accessed.