Yep, just look at the recent series "Ourcry" about a kid who served 6 years and was then exonerated for wrongful conviction.
Or look at the Buck decision, a SCOTUS case that lead to forced sterilization.
Or look at the SCOTUS decision that led to Japanese internment camps.
Oh and both of those decisions .. based on Jacobson. Contrary to what the media tells you, in Jacobson, they never forced him to take the vaccination, only pay the $5 fine. But that decision led to Buck and Manzanar.
It has basically already been to court several times and been flung out repeatedly. With lawyers stating they have nothing to present. There is a certain point where we need to own up and remember saying Biden rigged the election is slander and YouTube is well within it's right not to host it.
You're looking at this through a lens of "fairness". It doesn't have to be fair. Google doesn't have to decide to either let no lies through, or let all lies through.
It's their platform, their property, they are allowed to do with it as they will. Just like a newspaper doesn't have to print every letter sent in by a reader, or every ad someone wants printed. (This later example is something I have experience with: I was the editor of a college newspaper targeted by a white-supremacist holocaust-denying group that wanted me to print their anti-Semitic ads. I didn't print them)
No one is entitled to the amplification of their views that these platforms make possible. They may be platforms that are publicly accessible, but they are privately owned & operated, and I think it would be a serious blow to the concept of private property to essentially impose forced speech on them.
There are plenty of other platforms that will let someone run anything they want through them. Sure, they're not as big and don't have the audience that Google does, but again: no one is entitled to that Freedom of speech doesn't require anyone to force others to repeat that speech.
