3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoA 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 agoPretty sure profiting from illegal activity is.
- josephcsible 5y agoThat's a good argument for demonetization, sure, but the person I was replying to was advocating for more than just demonetization.
- helsinkiandrew 5y agoNo, 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.