You've framed a plausible hypothesis - which is the best any of us can do given a complete absence of any data - as "invent[ing] unfounded theories that can't b

You've framed a plausible hypothesis - which is the best any of us can do given a complete absence of any data - as "invent[ing] unfounded theories that can't be falsified". That's effective rhetoric, but it isn't really an argument. Instead, "I uncritically accept corporate PR as objective analysis" is what I consider to be a stupid way to go through life. Maybe your priors include "corporations always tell the truth", but mine don't. That obviously doesn't mean we should accept some alternative conspiracy theory X as the truth, but it does mean we should be skeptical and open minded about other explanations, especially given the context in this particular case of: (i) zero supporting data provided by YT, (ii) a very plausible set of alternative explanations that would be political suicide for YT to publicly state, (iii) the apparent anecdotal user-hostility of this decision.