That's not the issue here. The issue here is letting automated systems having final say on such destructive actions as terminating an account entirely, with no concrete way to appeal. From what I am aware of, few channels wrongfully suspended get reinstated through support but rather through public outcry on the likes of Twitter.
I don't think that's in disagreement with the parent. Whatever means YouTube uses to determine who to drop and who to keep is irrelevant because the point is that if you host content on someone else's servers you are giving them control.
I don't think so. The original comment says that YouTube has:
> the right to terminate and de-platform anyone's account who has been in violation of YouTube's guidelines and terms of service.
The problem here is letting automated systems, with a history of producing false-positives for content that didn't violate the Guidelines or ToS, having final say on account termination, with no concrete way to appeal - To me this is a fair criticism.
If the original comment says "the right to arbitrarily terminate and de-platform anyone's account", then I'll say that you have a point.
