> over Downing Street’s plan to force YouTube and other digital platforms to hand more prominence to established broadcasters, warning the move risks “facilitating censorship”

I don’t think that leads to censorship, but it does reek of something else!

> In a consultation this year, the UK government said it would consider legislating should the platforms not act to prioritise trustworthy content.

To get an idea of what the UK government considers "trustworthy", consider this incident, as reported by a "tabloid":

Nottinghamshire Police officer sacked on equality grounds for telling racist man to 'go home' The officer was 'provoked' by a man in custody who described England as a 'dirty nation' and its citizens as 'animals' - https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/nottinghamshi...

And by the BBC: Sergeant who made racist comment sacked - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8mr78xzzzo

The BBC omitted half the story, describing only the officer's response, and using only the vaguest "rude and abusive behaviour" description for the instigator. (As an aside, it's interesting to note that more police officers got sacked in that one single incident, than for the entire Rotherham grooming gangs scandal and coverup. The government has its priorities.)

They have a habit of doing this. When a Nigerian killed his Spanish wife, his identity was entirely omitted from the BBC's reporting, except for "ex-partner":

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyw7g4zxwzo

https://www.surinenglish.com/malaga/benalmadena-torremolinos...