5 ms·

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 d

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
    - unfocussed_mike 4y 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. This is a bit of a silly way to look at it, I'm sorry to say. What if they just remove the video on the balance of probability that it involved, in the FAA's judgement, a deliberate dangerous plane crash without permission? This is not a challenging precedent. House-flipping is not smashing a plane into the ground without planning and without regard for safety, is it?
      - himinlomax 4y ago
        What about infringement on the regulation on the handling of unsafe chemicals? Regulations on performing archælogical excavations? Food safety violations? Alcohol production? Blasphemy laws in any country Youtube might be accessed from? Animal cruelty laws? (Are hamster wheels cruel?) Religious laws on the consumption of cattle / pork? Privacy laws in Germany? (Dashcams are heavily regulated there) Is it legal to show a Nazi swastika everywhere? A non Nazi swastika? A communist symbol? What about an imperial Japanese ensign? Is it legal to say the Armenian suffered a genocide, or to claim they didn't? Is it legal to cast doubt on any one finding of the Nuremberg trials? What about mentioning a crime committed by a living person more than 20 years go? (Hint: it may not be legal in some European countries. Which ones? You tell me.)
        unfocussed_mike 4y ago
        Oh god. Look. I'm sorry. You're right, obviously. And I am wrong and of feeble mind. But please, make the libertarian Gish galloping stop.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Honest question, is it illegal to crash a plane? Or just secondary crimes, false flight plan, littering, reckless endangerment
- manicdee 4y ago
  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.
- _s 4y ago
  Just to add - getting permission alone is a few man-years worth of paperwork for planning, executing and cleanup.
- 9935c101ab17a66 4y ago
  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?
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    There is nothing wrong with dangerous stunts entirely for self promotion. He just should have done it over private land with permission
throwawaylinux 4y ago
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 4y ago
  Well done shoehorning all of that in.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    Great job not answering.
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
I'm sick of people calling in the hall monitors. Let things burn.
- unfocussed_mike 4y ago
  At least you're honest in your nihilism. I prefer to live in a world where people at least try to navigate grey areas.

LeonM 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
  - unfocussed_mike 4y 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. This is a bit of a silly way to look at it, I'm sorry to say. What if they just remove the video on the balance of probability that it involved, in the FAA's judgement, a deliberate dangerous plane crash without permission? This is not a challenging precedent. House-flipping is not smashing a plane into the ground without planning and without regard for safety, is it?
    - himinlomax 4y ago
      What about infringement on the regulation on the handling of unsafe chemicals? Regulations on performing archælogical excavations? Food safety violations? Alcohol production? Blasphemy laws in any country Youtube might be accessed from? Animal cruelty laws? (Are hamster wheels cruel?) Religious laws on the consumption of cattle / pork? Privacy laws in Germany? (Dashcams are heavily regulated there) Is it legal to show a Nazi swastika everywhere? A non Nazi swastika? A communist symbol? What about an imperial Japanese ensign? Is it legal to say the Armenian suffered a genocide, or to claim they didn't? Is it legal to cast doubt on any one finding of the Nuremberg trials? What about mentioning a crime committed by a living person more than 20 years go? (Hint: it may not be legal in some European countries. Which ones? You tell me.)
      - unfocussed_mike 4y ago
        Oh god. Look. I'm sorry. You're right, obviously. And I am wrong and of feeble mind. But please, make the libertarian Gish galloping stop.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Honest question, is it illegal to crash a plane? Or just secondary crimes, false flight plan, littering, reckless endangerment
manicdee 4y ago
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.
_s 4y ago
Just to add - getting permission alone is a few man-years worth of paperwork for planning, executing and cleanup.
9935c101ab17a66 4y ago
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?
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  There is nothing wrong with dangerous stunts entirely for self promotion. He just should have done it over private land with permission

throwawaylinux 4y ago

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 4y ago
Well done shoehorning all of that in.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  Great job not answering.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago

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

unfocussed_mike 4y ago
At least you're honest in your nihilism. I prefer to live in a world where people at least try to navigate grey areas.