Is it not their right to pursue profits? Do you want someone to regulate them?

It may be their right to pursue profits within the bounds of the law but that doesn't mean their actions along the way aren't distasteful.

"You simply find DuPont distasteful don't use plastics".

"If you simply find the treatment of warehouse workers distasteful don't buy anything online"

Just because someone or something's actions are within the letter of the law doesn't mean they are exempt from criticism.

You didn't answer the question - Do you want someone to regulate them?

I didn't answer the question because it was a non-sequitur and it was obvious the question was being asked in bad faith to trip me up, like a cop who asks how many drinks you had after you just told him you hadn't had anything to drink.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. If someone were to do a good job regulating them and make the situation better I'd approve. If someone were to do a bad job and make things worse I'd disapprove.

So your solution is for someone else to come up with a solution which you would find satisfactory by criteria you are unwilling to provide?

Whether regulation should stop YT from doing this is a legitimate question. Nothing else will prevent it. Observe that the government telling a private company what they must host on their platform is potentially more dangerous than the government telling a private company to take down a piece of content (neither of these are happening here but if we entertain the notion of regulating YT then these are to be considered).

So as a denizen of the US I won’t be able to access Canadian YouTube?

That's for Canadian YouTube to decide in accordance with Canadian laws.

So you are advocating for every country to do what China is doing with their great firewall, or at least to have the ability to do so?

Why is this standard not applied to anti vax content? You find YouTube’s actions distasteful and you want them to stop. YouTube finds anti vax content distasteful and wants that to stop. YouTube either has the right to stop this type of content on their platform or they don’t.

Note that Google has billions of dollars and control of a huge amount of the world's data. Then note the reason the low standard is applied to anti-vax content is because they are about as close to being politically irrelevant as one can be.

They're struggling to even exercise basic human rights (freedom of movement, opinion, peaceful association, speech, etc, etc. There is probably a right for healthcare self-determination slipped in to the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights too it seems like the sort of thing they'd slip in). There is room to argue about whether the UDoHR applies here, but it is very notable that the anti-vaxers have nearly no power to have a quite reasonable interpretation stick.

Their opinions just don't matter. They appear to be on the verge of being confined to their homes while being widely condemned and socially ostracised. They are likely to be fired. Which is why it is so concerning that systematic oppression is being bought in to deal with them - this is Google crossing scary lines that didn't need to be crossed.

what standard? the differences between finding content distasteful and completely deleting said content are self-evident.