Should this be about Youtube, specifically, they have certain threshold requirements that must be abided by. Some may wonder why they do the banning thing, but I think that has to do with deliberate misinformation regarding Covid and similar subjects. Politics.
Any person providing a critique must have sufficient experience with and use of the object (service, whatever) in order to put themselves out as a credible authority.
Any conflict of interest must be disclosed, and I would go further to require any communication with all the relevant parties to be disclosed. I think that would pass any test of credibility.
So, the person here ought to have used one of his three remaining neurons and asked a person he wasn't associated with and with no conflicts and with experience etc to do the "review". Not perfect, but ever so slightly better.
Anything less than this and it doesn’t pass the pub test. For without that, it could be a parody or malicious or any other rubbish that is protected by the US constitution.
I’m deliberately avoiding the publisher/platform issue, despite I think that being very important.