While the specific grounds that were cited seem weak, the central purpose of LBRY is to not remove content unless it is:
1) Not yours (cannot upload copyrighted works)
2) Illegal

Under those rules, porn and other content which is not allowed under Google's policies can readily be found. While I question the consistency of Google's enforcement, banning LBRY seems to be consistent with their stated policies.

They make claims that go beyond LBRY's twitter. For example, they make the assertion that Google's decision was arbitrary, which is the "ball" you're referring to. Yet, all they have is what we have, a cropped screenshot that may or may not be from a message sent by Google, and a screenshot which may or may not have been the one Google sent. If they were simply reporting that LBRY said X, in a neutral fashion, that would be one thing, but they are making claims beyond that. 

And of course, LBRY is itself an obviously biased source, as I'm pretty sure they're on their own side. So, arguing that the potentially biased source is getting information from an obviously biased source doesn't really help. Pointing out that a source is biased does not mean that everything they say is false, but it's a warning sign for readers to be skeptical of the site's conclusions and look into it themselves. Encouraging people to consider a site's point of view is most definitely a good thing.  

And... if we cut it out entirely, then all we have is LBRY's twitter feed giving their account of the situation, supported by one cropped image that they say is sent by Google. Tbh, I don't see that as worthy of much time or consideration.

What an actual good source worthy of posting would do is something like this...

Here is the video that allegedly was the cause for the app being taken down.

https://vimeo.com/102980219

Here is Google's policy on what counts as inappropriate content.

• Depictions of sexual nudity, or sexually suggestive poses in which the subject is nude, blurred or minimally clothed, and/or where the clothing would not be acceptable in an appropriate public context.
• Depictions, animations or illustrations of sex acts, or sexually suggestive poses or the sexual depiction of body parts.

Then they would let the reader decide if the alleged reason for taking down the app was valid.

Any time someone thinks that any of the things you posted can be considered extreme and that said place that promotes is considered, and I quote, "Extremely politically onesided", is positive for me, especially since many left-focused websites or jornals, like new york times, aren"t called that, when they clearly have a bias towards a certain political opinion.

Anyone that thinks that having positive news about Trump(or any right-leaned politician), or saying actual facts that isn't in favor of authoritarian-like movements like Black Lives Matter makes them "extreme" or think they are dilusional lives in a bubble, or at the very least are lying to themselves(or convinced themselves of that lie). 

Yeah, all those militarized police forces murdering people for being black, brutalizing protesters, all without consequences. THEY’RE the ones fighting against authoritarianism. :/

Sorry, but this first paragraph is just beyond ridiculous. 

I will for argument's sake assume that the New York Times is a biased rag that promotes communism, authoritarianism, pedophilia, cannibalism, and rounding up an executing Trump supporters. Whatever.

No matter how biased the Times is, that does not have anything to do with how biased another source is. "I like my sources biased, because other sources are biased", is not a good argument. Attacking another thing does not make your thing better. If one food will kill you, and the other will make you go blind, you don't eat either.

Second paragraph is just a pure strawman argument.

Oh god damn it, you are right! It was just I was so blinded by all the people killed by the protestors only because they were doing their job or just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or all the lives they have ruined by pillaging and tearing down stores, in the name of something they had nothing to do about. I'm so sorry!

Never said that I supported the site mentioned in the OP, though I did approve of it's overall approach to politic based on that one post(Because usually the people that makes that kind of comment are the ones that have tunnel vision, and thus anything they disagree with is something that I agree, but alas that's not the point). Actually I never heard of it before. The initial post I made regarding this subject is exactly what you pointed out: That it was being disregarded not by facts or actual arguments, like the posts you made, but rather because, and I will quote:

"-Anti lockdown support
-Negative news towards Black Lives Matter
-Positive news towards Trump
-anti censoring enforced by leftists"

All topics that have legitimate arguments for and against. So just disregarding it based on it being against something that you dont like or support, but not the arguments on why he is against, is faulty by itself. And the double standard about this whole discussion is, since every paper and website has some form of bias to one way or another(such as The New York Times being more left-leaned, as it is (usually) evident in the stories they run and how they phrase their editorials and such) disheartening and infuriating to say the least.

But if you want to argue with me, please dont attack me for saying this you dont agree, and then making things up that I didn't say. All I said is that The New York times is left-leaned, not "communism, authoritarianism, pedophilia, cannibalism, and rounding up an executing Trump supporters". Don't come to me saying my argument is a pure "strawnman argument" but you end pulling this.

It's sad what the US has become, if those views are regarded as "extremely politically onesided".

As a Swedish medical doctor I am very critical of lockdowns. We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself. It's sad how the covid pandemic became so politicized over there. Sweden never imposed hard lockdowns.

In my view, the whole basis for Black Lives Matter is extreme, to claim that the US is a systemically racist society that must be deconstructed, to demand that the police must be defunded. BLM is much more about revolution against an entire society than it's about racial justice.

Positive news about the president of the USA shouldn't be controversial! Trump has politically acomplished many great things. Trump tries to withdraw the US from foreign conflicts, he tries to correct the US support to questionable organizations and treaties (the UN, WHO, Nafta, NATO, the Paris Agreement), he has improved the US economy, he actively tries to confront cancel culture and the threat from big tech giants against Western democracy.

And cancel culture is the most dangerous movement that threatens Western liberal democracy. As a European, one would have imagined that censorship and cancel culture would have great difficulties taking root in the one nation in the world that was actually founded upon freedom of speech and liberty.

I'd say it's because you fundamentally lack any understanding of what authoritarianism means.

No amount of fictional red herrings is going to make your misunderstanding any less backward.

Did I say that you said any of those things about the times? I mean, the post is right there. Show me where I said that, and I'll apologize.

The point is when questioned about preferring biased sources, you responded by attacking another source. And no matter how bad or extreme that source is it in no way validates any other source. Hence, the hyperbolic example. 

If you truly believe that there are legitimate arguments for or against each of those positions, then you should be extremely skeptical of a site that consistently expresses only one view, which is why the source should be treated with skepticism at the least and disregarding it is not unreasonable.

And you did indeed say you supported it. Unless you don't support sites that you like.