Under the net neutrality paradigm, the entities "paying" for the last-network bandwidth are the ISP customers, not the content providers. The content they choose to receive has traditionally been expected to be treated "neutrally" without requiring payment by the provider. This argument has been had, and in virtually all cases our community has agreed (contra the positions of many regulators it seems) that it's a good thing.

Have you flipped on net neutrality or are you just confused because Google is the party harmed in this case?

Yes, because the customers of the networks have already paid for the bandwidth!

I buy internet access and that includes access to youtube!

You might, for just a brief moment, consider a less cynical, equally plausible explanation.