Well but did I intentionally search for that video, or did I search for, say, content about vaccines?
If you're saying the video is unlisted/private and sent to people on a mailing list over email, that's one thing, but I think you're arguing that YT should act as a distributor as well, and there's no way to "impartially" order search results.
Nobody is forcing the searcher to view any of the content presented as search results and I think it's hard to make the case that mere exposure to unwanted search results is anything other than a minor irritation.
I think we would be in agreement that improvements in search and algorithmic identification of content would be a great thing so that people who don't want to see fringe content can be helped to avoid receiving it in their search results?
Let me rephrase: what, in your opinion, is wrong with Youtube's search algorithm making antivaxx content appear "last"?
This is "just" a choice about how they order search results, but is functionally equivalent to delisting the content. Is that okay? If not, what makes today's ordering "more okay", and broadly, how do we delineate between acceptable search algorithms, and unacceptable ones?
If you're saying the video is unlisted/private and sent to people on a mailing list over email, that's one thing, but I think you're arguing that YT should act as a distributor as well, and there's no way to "impartially" order search results.