Not sure if I got this correctly. The argument is that no rational conversation of public interest can be hosted by youtube, in order to protect the public from

Not sure if I got this correctly. The argument is that no rational conversation of public interest can be hosted by youtube, in order to protect the public from the sensationalistic garbage youtube cynically promotes? And the solution is to let the machine rampage freely, but drastically censor certain points of view? Worse, youtube outcompetes traditional mass-media for ad dollars by exploiting precisely the sensationalism engine. The net result is an uninformed population fed sensationalism on all cylinders, with rampant censorship decided by a tiny clique. I have some doubts whether this is a recipe for a stable prosperous society. Edit. Of course the bulk of the conversation should happen on technical grounds in the medical media in relative obscurity. But given the high profile of the covid pandemic, should a therapeutic drug with a stack of studies backing claims of positive impact, be discussed in mass-media?