This is slippery slope fallacy. I don't think YouTube removing genuially harmful and false content is really comparable to CCP's suppression of opposing views.
Conversely, others could say that the CCPs removing of generally harmful and false content isn't really comparable to YouTube’s suppression of opposing views.
The difference isn't that some third party observer thinks that what YouTube is suppressing is “harmful and false” while what the CCP is suppressing is opposing views that are neither, in that estimation, harmful nor false, but that YouTube isn't the state and people in the geographic region served by YouTube have alternate sources of content that are not subject to YouTube’s editorial decisions, while those in the region “served” by the CCP have all information sources subjected to (at least by policy, if not always completely successful) the same editorial oversight.
