I'm guessing YouTube bans videos that promote self-harm and harm to other humans? At what stage does anti-vaccination material cross that line?
Governments already ban certain ways of promoting smoking and alcohol use in an effort to reduce harm. Why should anti-vaccination material be considered differently when people not being vaccinating can be directly linked to the death of others?
There is a crackdown on falsely promoting junk food as healthy or promoting it to people who don't know better (namely children). Maybe not on YouTube, but in various countries' legislation.
It's not really a fair comparison, though. The main issue with anti-vaccination content is dangerous misinformation, not simply promoting something harmful. The other issue is that the people who fall for this content aren't usually the ones who get hurt, their innocent children are. It would only be a fair comparison if there were a large movement of very influential, powerful, and famous people posting "vegetables cause autism, and Burger King cures it" videos out there to hundreds of millions of viewers and a boom in child obesity tied directly to parents viewing them.
Yes but the line between good and bad food is not as clear as the difference between vax and no-vax. Moreover some countries (eg France) already have restrictions on junk food advertising.
A major difference is not vaccinating yourself can cause the death of others.
How you encourage healthy eating and moderation is also a very complex topic in comparison. Vaccination is a much more binary choice (you vaccinate or you don't), and is highly effective.
Governments already ban certain ways of promoting smoking and alcohol use in an effort to reduce harm. Why should anti-vaccination material be considered differently when people not being vaccinating can be directly linked to the death of others?