YouTube (a division of Google) has a specially abusive place when it comes to the world of selective censorship - that only seems to apply to truths liberals hate to hear.
Examples of Intolerance
Some examples include:6 items
2019.06.11 YouTube Censors Project Veritas - Project Veritas created a video that showed who/how Pinterest was censoring LiveAction.org (a Christian group) as "Pornography" for showing facts about abortion, as well as mislabelling folks like Ben Shapiro (Jewish Conservative) and Candice Owens (Black Conservatives) as Neo-Nazi's/White Supremacists. Because that's journalism, YouTube and Twitter censored the video (or posting about it) as doxing. Multiple real journalists and free speech orgs cried foul.
2019.06.24 Veritas Google Exec - Google Insider exposes Google's partisan plan to prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam vide where Jen Gennai (head of “Responsible Innovation”) talks about what everyone already knew: they admit they're partisan and manipulating the public to prevent Trump, that they suppressed truthful "right-wingers" like PragerU and Dave Rubin (a moderate podcaster who is gay), and that they were manipulating their machine learning (Search results) to further left leaning agendas (e.g. more 'fair'). Because this was investigative journalism that exposed the truth and didn't violate any of the written terms, YouTube blocks the video because the truth makes them look bad. A couple of their execs deleted their Social Media accounts.
2019.12.02 YouTube reduces Free Speech - YouTube CEO Susan Wojcick bragged on 60 minutes (to Lesley Stahl) that YouTube put an army of 10,000 censors on finding and eliminating, "Controversial Content", and through judicious use of the thought police (both real and scripts), they cut viewership of what they considered unworthy content by 70%. Of course her phrasing was slightly different, that was the gist. There's little doubt that filtering some of this objectionable content is a win, nor that some of what they're calling "Controversial Content" is just things that don't fit their party line. Which is the real question: why does a proxy government get to decide what is worthy or not, through a completely opaque and un-auditable system with a history of rejecting Americanism, Conservatism, while still being completely tolerant of leftist racism (Black Lives Matters, Eugenics through Planned Parenthood) and intolerance (anti-2A and pro-gun control)?
Crowder YouTube Demonetization - After a liberal crybully (Carlos Maza) has a history of inciting violence on twitter (throwing Milkshakes) against conservatives. He used Vox (his parent company) to pressure YouTube to because Steven Crowder calls him a lispy queer polemic douche... because he is one and that was how Maza referred to himself on a few occasions. YouTube admitted that while there was no individual violation of terms they were still going to demonetize Steven Crowder because mocking the left for being horrible journalists and bad people is no longer allowed, especially when it is true. Then YouTube went full retard and started burning down (blocking) historical videos of Hitler (truth) to the point of pulling episodes of Seinfeld that had the Soup Nazi (satire), or anything that might offend the sensibilities of the far left, which is any History they haven't rewritten yet. And far left outlets like Vice and WaPo defend the move and get the basic facts wrong. And Crowder made money on the subscription drive that YouTube's actions contributed towards. (#VoxAdpocalypse)
Nasim Aghdam (YouTube Shooter) -
Social Media Censorship - The most left-leaning tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, Instagram are the ones that are most likely to censor/filter what the public sees... in the name of free speech of course. Which on one hand would be fine (they're private companies), if they hadn't sold people on getting an account and giving up their data, under the fraud that they would be fair, non-partisan and for freedom of information: things that all turned out to be lies.
- Legal Insurrection got censored because they showed how Palestinian children are exploited for the cameras. Note the same standard does not apply to claims against Israel (as many others had shown those videos without getting banned). 
- PragerU's was suppressed/censored (silently), with no evidence offered that anything they have said it wrong, untrue, or racist. They do expose misleading beliefs of the far left, so that appears reasonable to block or punish them. 
- YouTube went on a crusade against guns, first you couldn't sell guns, then promote guns, and so on. They terminated gun parts channels, like Brownells. They're inventing laws and changing terms that are against the spirit of our constitution. 
- As part of an NYT Expose by Project Veritas (James O'keefe), they caught the NYT editor Nick Dudich explaining how he was using friendships and coordination with YouTube (Earnest Pettie) to manipulate social media to intentionally influence the news.  YouTube was being a tool of evil, to work against a free election.
Every company has a right to decide who they support or not. But the problem is Google/YouTube PRETENDS to be an open platform (and community service). Yet, they're not doing what they advertise. If they openly admitted in their policies that they're a left-of-center advocacy site that will censor center/right positions at will, then at least that would be honest.
More than that, they keep changing the rules after people have built their business on assumptions that if they're approved today, that these places won't be asshats and suddenly change the rules tomorrow. But that's not how Google/YouTube works -- fuck you all, we changed the rules for arbitrary reasons and broke your business, pray we don't change the rules again. It's the complete lack of clarity, forethought, advance notice, and arbitrariness that make them unreliable business partners. They are the next Quark.
The Government has already decided that if you're open to the public business, you should NOT have the right to discriminate (based on race, gender, disability, sexual preference)... sad that we have to extend this to political/ideological affiliation. As this should be obvious that in a free society, good people don't try to shout down or gag others: they ignore, or let them have their piece and then decimate them with reason, not the club of censorship.
Because of YouTube's anti-gun and anti-Free Speech positions, there have been some alternatives outlets created to be American versions of YouTube (instead of fascist ones that censor views they don't like): 4 items
BitChute - Bitchute is a UK based P2P (Torrent front-end) alternative to YouTube video sharing, created in 2017. A lot of conservative/right folks cross-post to BitChute, in case they are blocked by the crypto-fascists at Google. This insurance worked well for a few that were banned or demonetized for reasons unknown or imagined. Far left organizations like PayPal also joined the fray by banning them and the SPLC has criticized BitChute for some of its content. In a free speech zone, it's true that some content veers towards offensive/unsavory like Christchurch mosque shooting video or manifesto: but these facts/content is necessary to research and discuss topics from an informed point of view. Their complaint would be more valid if the same people complaining didn't propagate leftists hate themselves, or they at least stopped the pretense that they care about free speech.
Brighteon - I think this was once Real.Video as well, but now is Brighteon.com -- they were basically an alternative YouTube, but because people hosted historically factual but offensive things (like the Christchurch shooting video), they were threatened with de-platforming, so are working on alternatives.
Full30 - Basically, Gun YouTube that's in beta. Their contact and information is on a footer that you can't click on because it keeps auto-loading more content and moving it away when you try to click it.
LBRY - LBRY is a secure content sharing and publishing platform (using blockchain) that is decentralized and owned by its users. That means it should get around most oppressive restrictions on content. It's also a micropayment system where you can buy/share content and charge for information/data. It's being used partly as an alternative YouTube.