they only need to act if it is outright illegal
under who's jurisdiction?
I think I can better explain my feelings about this, without going too political now, so here it is:
TV (which YouTube is a sort of partial, modern equivalent), in the old days (at least, here in the UK, although I suspect other countries, had varying, but somewhat similar systems in place, as well). We had the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation, who still exist, of course), with some kind of censorship, as to what we were or were not, allowed to watch. Which also, varied, depending on the time of day (when children were more or less likely to be watching, e.g. a 9 PM threshold/watershed, after which, things can get worse).
N.B. I'm no expert on the precise details on how this censorship mechanism worked, so take what I say, as being extremely rough.
But at least, it was a country wide, implemented/voted-in/decided/controlled/owned, body. Who set lines in the sand, as to how bad (violence, sexual stuff, etc), things could go.
So it was sort of fair and reasonable, and could both sometimes allow, fairly/somewhat political/violent/different/sexual/problematic stuff through, onto the TV (Cinemas/Video-Tapes etc, were controlled by a similar or identical mechanism).
Whereas now, it seems the (analogy)
YouTube TV channel, is controlled by a company. That company is largely based in a different country, is highly motivated by adverts and profit. They (the company), can also be extremely secretive as to exactly what is and is not allowed.
This would seem to be a significantly bad, downward step.
E.g. The company could decide to politically bias the content. So, content which promotes their views, could be given lots of promotion, but content that is against their political views, could be blocked (possibly silently), and/or only rarely presented to users.
So in summary, I don't think it is a good thing. Such choices (what is and is not allowed to be shown), should be chosen by society as a whole, who can elect suitable governing bodies, along with rules and laws, to keep things in shape.
Not some, who knows what, at the top of these (often) giant technological companies. Who may not have our (the users), best interests at heart, and be far from neutral about stuff, including important political things.