This isn't eminent domain, the government didn't decide to build a video service that they need to evict Youtube for. Apparently Youtube decided to remove a video without proper support in their terms of service, so they're being judged to be in violation of their contract with the user.
Whether or not Youtube should have a clause in their terms allowing them to remove arbitrary content is a different question, and yet another is whether they should be allowed to have such a clause.
Whether or not Youtube should have a clause in their terms allowing them to remove arbitrary content is a different question, and yet another is whether they should be allowed to have such a clause.