[indoclay]

What evidence has been provided to meet this preponderance of evidence standard you are putting forward for moral evaluation?

You have one party making an allegation claiming they have documents to back it up and the other party denying innocence with claims of their own exculpatory evidence. Nothing has been shared to the public by either party for me evaluate who has the preponderance of evidence.

I do believe YouTube (or any other private platform) can and should be able to set it's own rules for participation so I see no issue with what they did here. If it's a right for someone to be on that platform then we should not be relying on a private party to guarantee that and make the necessary legislative changes.

I would just love to understand why I should be outraged at this individual before anything has been presented before me so that I can evaluate for myself.

[JohnMakin]

No one is telling you to be outraged about it.

[Fervicus]

But we are being told (in this thread) that we should assume that the allegations are credible.