5 ms·

> Youtube should really kick him off the platform. This is a dangerous thought. There is already too much decision making of what is allowed on our social plat

by gpt5 5y ago

> Youtube should really kick him off the platform. This is a dangerous thought. There is already too much decision making of what is allowed on our social platform by the big corps. YouTube should at best demonetize the video, and only if it does that consistently based on a public policy.

dachryn 5y ago
demonitization seems the best option I guess. Leave it up as a display of stupidity, and aviation history. But don't let him profit of something illegal
- withinboredom 5y ago
  People write books about their past illegal exploits. Are you against people documenting their lives for profit, in-general? I don’t see the difference here except that it’s a video instead of a book.
  - ozmodiar 5y ago
    I think the tricky part with this particular video is that the documentation (plane crash video) was the entire point of committing the act. If people were committing crimes entirely to sell tell all books or documentaries about doing it that would be a lot more sketchy.
kube-system 5y ago
I would normally agree with you but I feel like there’s a moral issue with what is essentially monetizing criminal activity. At a minimum, it should be demonetized and YouTube shouldn’t show any ads either.
- hjkl0 5y ago
  > there’s a moral issue with what is essentially monetizing criminal activity Then it should be in their terms of service. In fact it probably is…
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 5y ago
  Agreed. YouTube is profiting from his malfeasance.
  - ARandomerDude 5y ago
    Otherwise, it's just malfeasance for malfeasance's sake.
- fastball 5y ago
  Shouldn't his status as a criminal be decided by a court of law first?
  - sascha_sl 5y ago
    It's pretty obvious, but I guess we could suspend his pay and if he ends up being guilty youtube can donate the proceeds.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    There may be no meaningful legal sanction for this.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Many jurisdictions have ways to seize profits of crime, and just about all have ways to punish crime including paying fines and restitution. Don't you think it would be better to go through a system which has (at least a semblance of) due process, fairness, and transparency about the rules? Yes yes I know I know, "they're a private company they can do what they want". I'm not wondering what they can do, more flabbergasted about the apparent sudden and large support for corporations acting to censor and punish people like this.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    I guess "criminal activity" may have been the wrong phrase. "Illegal activity" is more what I meant. Because not all illegal activity is adjudicated by a court, and a regulatory action by the FAA is one of those things.
- prox 5y ago
  Shadowbanning is another option.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  But he isn't convicted yet... The solution would be for a court to take that money away at the same time as convicting him. And I think many courts would do exactly that.
helsinkiandrew 5y ago
> This is a dangerous thought. There is already too much decision making of what is allowed on our social platform by the big corps In this case though the FAA has made the decision, he didn't do something in bad taste - he did something that could have been very dangerous to others, could have started a major fire, and was illegal (or at least broke the FAA rules enough for him to loose his license). And the reason he did that was (almost certainly) to make a YouTube video - I think YouTube would be justified from kicking him off their platform for this.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > he did something that [...] was illegal But remember that aside from a few narrow exceptions (e.g., CSAM), sharing videos of someone doing something illegal isn't itself illegal.
  - throwaway290 5y ago
    A privately owned platform can (should?) apply higher standards than 'is it illegal' when moderating UGC. Since the service is 'free' and no money changes hands it's not as if they have to refund banned user etc.
  - mnd999 5y ago
    Pretty sure profiting from illegal activity is.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      That's a good argument for demonetization, sure, but the person I was replying to was advocating for more than just demonetization.
  - helsinkiandrew 5y ago
    No, but in this case it's probably certain that if he wasn't going to make a YouTube video he wouldn't have done the illegal act. It's probably something that most companies and advertisers, wouldn't want to be associated with incase they were seen to be endorsing and encouraging the act.
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
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 5y ago
  > 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.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    > 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.
    - himinlomax 5y ago
      It may be a huge difference, but the problem with asking Youtube to take that kind of decision without a court order is that you're expecting them to have expertise in aviation law. What next? Should they remove house flipping videos because of realtor regulations in various jurisdictions? Remove DIY videos because some jurisdictions require electrical repairs to be performed by certified technicians? The list is endless, and the precedent is so very bad.
      - 5y ago
pjc50 5y ago
> YouTube should at best demonetize the video, and only if it does that consistently based on a public policy. Exactly. I'm generally in favour of youtube removing objectionable material, or at least corralling it somewhere as they already do with their half-assed "mature content" filter, but it absolutely must be done on a policy basis which is written down upfront and made clear to uploaders, and subject to fair reviews. Doing it on outrage based case by case basis is just enraging to all involved. And it's not the actual content of this video which is objectionable, but the circumstances under which it was made. Possibly it contravenes UK rules on profiting from crime if it's monetized: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02993/SN02993.pdf https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02... - but (a) it's not in our jurisdiction and (b) he hasn't actually been convicted yet.

by gpt5 5y ago

dachryn 5y ago

demonitization seems the best option I guess. Leave it up as a display of stupidity, and aviation history. But don't let him profit of something illegal

withinboredom 5y ago
People write books about their past illegal exploits. Are you against people documenting their lives for profit, in-general? I don’t see the difference here except that it’s a video instead of a book.
- ozmodiar 5y ago
  I think the tricky part with this particular video is that the documentation (plane crash video) was the entire point of committing the act. If people were committing crimes entirely to sell tell all books or documentaries about doing it that would be a lot more sketchy.

kube-system 5y ago

I would normally agree with you but I feel like there’s a moral issue with what is essentially monetizing criminal activity. At a minimum, it should be demonetized and YouTube shouldn’t show any ads either.

hjkl0 5y ago
> there’s a moral issue with what is essentially monetizing criminal activity Then it should be in their terms of service. In fact it probably is…
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 5y ago
Agreed. YouTube is profiting from his malfeasance.
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  Otherwise, it's just malfeasance for malfeasance's sake.
fastball 5y ago
Shouldn't his status as a criminal be decided by a court of law first?
- sascha_sl 5y ago
  It's pretty obvious, but I guess we could suspend his pay and if he ends up being guilty youtube can donate the proceeds.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  There may be no meaningful legal sanction for this.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Many jurisdictions have ways to seize profits of crime, and just about all have ways to punish crime including paying fines and restitution. Don't you think it would be better to go through a system which has (at least a semblance of) due process, fairness, and transparency about the rules? Yes yes I know I know, "they're a private company they can do what they want". I'm not wondering what they can do, more flabbergasted about the apparent sudden and large support for corporations acting to censor and punish people like this.
- kube-system 5y ago
  I guess "criminal activity" may have been the wrong phrase. "Illegal activity" is more what I meant. Because not all illegal activity is adjudicated by a court, and a regulatory action by the FAA is one of those things.
prox 5y ago
Shadowbanning is another option.
londons_explore 5y ago
But he isn't convicted yet... The solution would be for a court to take that money away at the same time as convicting him. And I think many courts would do exactly that.

helsinkiandrew 5y ago

> This is a dangerous thought. There is already too much decision making of what is allowed on our social platform by the big corps In this case though the FAA has made the decision, he didn't do something in bad taste - he did something that could have been very dangerous to others, could have started a major fire, and was illegal (or at least broke the FAA rules enough for him to loose his license). And the reason he did that was (almost certainly) to make a YouTube video - I think YouTube would be justified from kicking him off their platform for this.

josephcsible 5y ago
> he did something that [...] was illegal But remember that aside from a few narrow exceptions (e.g., CSAM), sharing videos of someone doing something illegal isn't itself illegal.
- throwaway290 5y ago
  A privately owned platform can (should?) apply higher standards than 'is it illegal' when moderating UGC. Since the service is 'free' and no money changes hands it's not as if they have to refund banned user etc.
- mnd999 5y ago
  Pretty sure profiting from illegal activity is.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    That's a good argument for demonetization, sure, but the person I was replying to was advocating for more than just demonetization.
- helsinkiandrew 5y ago
  No, but in this case it's probably certain that if he wasn't going to make a YouTube video he wouldn't have done the illegal act. It's probably something that most companies and advertisers, wouldn't want to be associated with incase they were seen to be endorsing and encouraging the act.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

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 5y ago
> 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.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  > 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.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    It may be a huge difference, but the problem with asking Youtube to take that kind of decision without a court order is that you're expecting them to have expertise in aviation law. What next? Should they remove house flipping videos because of realtor regulations in various jurisdictions? Remove DIY videos because some jurisdictions require electrical repairs to be performed by certified technicians? The list is endless, and the precedent is so very bad.
    - 5y ago

pjc50 5y ago

> YouTube should at best demonetize the video, and only if it does that consistently based on a public policy. Exactly. I'm generally in favour of youtube removing objectionable material, or at least corralling it somewhere as they already do with their half-assed "mature content" filter, but it absolutely must be done on a policy basis which is written down upfront and made clear to uploaders, and subject to fair reviews. Doing it on outrage based case by case basis is just enraging to all involved. And it's not the actual content of this video which is objectionable, but the circumstances under which it was made. Possibly it contravenes UK rules on profiting from crime if it's monetized: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02993/SN02993.pdf https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02... - but (a) it's not in our jurisdiction and (b) he hasn't actually been convicted yet.