> Can you convince me of why I should trust Youtube's owners to police what I can see and hear, rather than rely on my own whims and judgements?

Asking this question is precisely the systemic risk to Youtube. If there's thought policing going on; there will be a host of players with "the best of intentions" who want in on it. From Animal Control to the Pentagon; every branch of .gov will want a piece of that pie as will most of the quasi-governmental and non-governmental stakeholders.

If only truth is allowed; whose truth?

If fiction is marked as such; who decides what is not fantasy?

If some powerful faction makes money from people believing that chemtrails are government mind-control drugs being spewed into the air to make us all more compliant and effeminate; should they be allowed to spread that belief at will? What happens if the profitable meme is that a certain ethnic group is diluting the purity of a majority ethnic groups heritage and should therefore be exterminated? Do we allow that?

What are the limits of acceptable folly?

Or what if Harvard scientists said that sugar is good, fat is bad, because they were paid some bribe?

So Youtube bans videos spreading "fake news" that disagrees with the "science" by "foremost industry experts."

What if it was about leaded gasoline? Or $500 million is missing Haiti charitable funds.

Or the catalyst for the Vietnam War, the Gulf of Tonkin, as well as the WMD claims that set off Iraq War, were all lies?

All these things really happened.