I think oconnor663 would agree that it is insane. I believe the argument is that YouTube needs to protect itself because someone could insinuate that they are

I think oconnor663 would agree that it is insane. I believe the argument is that YouTube needs to protect itself because someone could insinuate that they are complicit in a crime simply because someone was trained in the criminal act via YouTube video. I think the counter-argument is that no policy will protect YouTube from these types of arguments. If some politician wants to demonize YouTube via hyperbolic argument, then they will find a way. These types of disputes rarely use facts. YouTube should stick to Free Speech and accept that haters are going to hate. To me this just demonstrates that the YouTube leadership has no backbone.