[unfocussed_mike]

This guy crashed a plane for profit. The fact that US law doesn't seem to have any meaningful sanction for him is not a reason for it to stay up.

They should delete the video. And I really don't understand the argument that they shouldn't stop him using their platform; my goodness if Youtube was mine he'd be gone and I wouldn't for a second wonder if there was any meaningful free speech implication for removing it.

He is dangerous, and the allure of more views on youtube made him do a dangerous thing. I'd be like: "OK, you're not my customer anymore".

[LeonM]

> This guy crashed a plane for profit.

So did the Discovery channel. The only difference is that they had asked the FAA permission to do so.

This guy crashed a plane for profit without permission. This may have just been stupidity, not understanding the consequences. Loads of people also crash other vehicles for fun and profit, so why should YT distinguish between someone crashing a car vs a plane. Where should YT draw the line? They don't make the laws.

[manicdee]

The discovery channel didn’t try to pretend it was an engine fire. They set out to plan a plane crash with the full involvement of relevant authorities.

[9935c101ab17a66]

Yes, but now the FAA has stated what we all knew already — it was dangerous stunt undertaken entirely for self-promotion. YouTube don’t have to be experts?

[unfocussed_mike]

> The only difference

If you're pinning your argument on this, then fine. But it is a huge difference.

Honestly this whole idea that Youtube should willingly be a party to this sort of thing is a libertarian take too far for me, but then I'm British.

[_s]

Just to add - getting permission alone is a few man-years worth of paperwork for planning, executing and cleanup.

[BeFlatXIII]

I'm sick of people calling in the hall monitors. Let things burn.

[unfocussed_mike]

At least you're honest in your nihilism.

I prefer to live in a world where people at least try to navigate grey areas.

[throwawaylinux]

Do you think youtube should systematically go through all videos for perceived dangerous people or people who look like views might "make" them do dangerous things, or just the ones that are brought to their attention by angry mobs / report volume?

And would "dangerous" include technically legal but dangerous actions like speaking up for gay rights in Yemen or criticizing cartels in Mexico? Or would they be more limited to the youtube wrong-think-corrections officer judging the video to demonstrate outright illegal actions like protesting Putin's special operation while in Russia, or publishing documents containing evidence of western war crimes?

[unfocussed_mike]

Well done shoehorning all of that in.