To be fair, they're the largest non-pornographic video platform. Making them an endless target for any and all abuse possible to grow channels quickly and earn ad revenue.
It's inevitable that in such an environment the system they come up with ends up making less and less sense over time. It's death by a thousand cuts, and I don't think there's a good way to really avoid it.
On the one hand because they are this large, they cannot currate content. On the other hand they are arguing because they are this large they are the only ones who can currate this content.
I would feel more sympathetic to your argument if the companies wouldn't argue both cases at the same time.
> I would feel more sympathetic to your argument if the companies wouldn't argue both cases at the same time.
I don't really care about sympathy, so much as I care about reality. The companies will do as all companies do. Try to make money by garnering confidence in their product & abilities. Even if they have to lie through their teeth.
Reality is, there isn't a good system (currently) to really curate massive amounts of user submitted video content, in an environment where anyone anywhere can submit said video content.
The problem's scale is always going to lead towards either a compromise of being an open video platform, or a compromise in relation to curation.
It's inevitable that in such an environment the system they come up with ends up making less and less sense over time. It's death by a thousand cuts, and I don't think there's a good way to really avoid it.