Yep, why in the world does youtube get to make "editorial" decisions at all when they're explicitely not a publisher.

Section 230 is broken as fuck and, frustratingly, the fix is really simple:

If you're a platform, you can't be sued or charged with any content on your site so long as you remove anything illegal (ie a warrant is issued) in a reasonable amount of time. You can't censor, modify, hide, or otherwise discriminate negatively against any content (I'd be find with certain content being "boosted" or "featured"). Further, you are legally liable for your terms of service and can be sued if you either don't apply them fairly or do not adequately explain them or their application (in this case, not providing a specific infringement).

If you're a publisher, you can do whatever the hell you want on your site, but you are legally liable for everything on it.

Done, elect me to congress for more helpful tips.