[throwaway8879]

Are you young to pay YouTube to hire the thousands of moderators that are going to sit and manually approve videos all day long?

There is nothing "wrong" with a video. You could argue about the morality of the action itself, but that's a separate issue.

We as a collective have made a sort of common agreement that it's beneficial for internet platforms to be open and free from the tangles of traditional regulations.

Questions about should or should not don't have any meaningful use in the real world. If you want internet platforms to be more strictly regulated, then use your voting rights to make the changes you want to see in the world.

I don't see any sense in censoring a video of death and destruction. If you don't want to watch it, then don't watch it. If YouTube doesn't want it on their platform, then they should have the right to remove it. If they want to host it, then public outrage shouldn't force them to remove it, unless they do it out of their own accord for marketing and public relations reasons.

[jmhnilbog]

I'm not arguing to pay YouTube to hire thousands of moderators. I'm arguing that YouTube should not be allowed to post content without taking responsibility for it. If YouTube can't find a way to act responsibly, why should it be allowed to function at all?

I am not trying to say what video should be censored. I'm saying that if you host the thing, you should be held responsible for it. A large tech company shouldn't be able to say "hey, we made it easy for anyone to do this thing, heck, we even pay them to do it, but we have no responsibility for what they do because we made it too easy for too many people to do it and, uh, we don't want to pay people to look at all this garbage."