The activists were explicitly campaigning for Google and all the other tech companies to take the exact same agressive, false positives be damned approach that

The activists were explicitly campaigning for Google and all the other tech companies to take the exact same agressive, false positives be damned approach that they did to ISIS. They specifically pointed to the ISIS purge as proof that Google etc could do this and were wickedly refusing to do so. In order to justify their narrative that Google was evil for not doing this, they argued that the only reason not to do this was because Google was worried about it affecting right-wingers - even though in reality we know that it would be much more likely to catch reporters and analysts. A better analogy would be if campaigners demanded the police be forced to arrest anyone who broke the speed limit with no exemptions, called anyone who opposed them supporters of dangerous speeding, and then were shocked whem most of the emergency services ended up in jail. I don't think there's even any way around this problem. The activists want anyone who reports on the far right in ways they consider excessively sympathetic to be banned too, and you can't implement "how activists feel" as the policy dictating what's allowed on something the size of YouTube. It just doesn't scale.