Your assertion is correct. They have editorial control over their website as a matter of free-speech. However, when the YouTube sponsored "Freedom Forum" gives

Your assertion is correct. They have editorial control over their website as a matter of free-speech. However, when the YouTube sponsored "Freedom Forum" gives the YouTube CEO, Susan Wojcikci a "free expression award" for censoring content, that's hypocritical. >@YouTube CEO @SusanWojcicki has been at the forefront of fighting hate speech and misinformation online. She’ll be honored at this year’s Free Expression Awards. https://twitter.com/1stforall/status/1378505352715571206?lang=en https://twitter.com/1stforall/status/1378505352715571206?lan... It is possible to agree with the right of a private company to control their own platform how they see fit, while disagreeing with the choices they make. That said, there are cases where platforms have censored content at the behest of government officials. In these cases it is alleged that 1st amendment rights are violated and platforms are acting as agents of the government. >These documents blow up the big lie that Big Tech censorship is ‘private’ – as the documents show collusion between a whole group of government officials in multiple states to suppress speech about election controversies. >The document shows that California state officials contacted YouTube directly to remove the video on September 24, 2020, and that YouTube seemed to respond by deleting the video on September 27, 2020 https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ca-big-tech-biden-censorship-judicial-watch https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ca-big-tech-biden-cen... These instances were uncovered by FOIA requests to the US government. Unfortunately, the CCP does not honor such requests.