[anigbrowl]

Absurd. Public meetings are proceedings of record, even if they are populated by liars or idiots (whether attending as members of the public or as elected officials). People who can't attend have a legitimate interest in knowing who said what, regardless of its truth value.

We've seen this problem again and again: not that tech companies want to censor stuff (they do have a legitimate interest in setting standards for how their platform is used by others) but that they are cheapskates trying to bring in as much money as possible while spending as little on oversight as possible, and for all their smarts their algorithmic solutions often yield bad results because they're based on the asinine assumption that all content and attention is fungible.

[lotsofpulp]

> they are cheapskates trying to bring in as much money as possible while spending as little on oversight as possible

They are the cheapskates for offering a free video hosting and serving option? Or the city that does not want to pay to host their videos on their own computing resources where no one else controls it?

[anigbrowl]

You could argue the city is trying to save public money and make public meetings as widely accessible as possible. Youtube knows full well that not all content is interchangeable, they just don't want to spend money on curating it. The hosting service is the nectar so they can spray the visitors with advertising pollen.