unfocussed_mike

At least you're honest in your nihilism.

I prefer to live in a world where people at least try to navigate grey areas.

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.

Well done shoehorning all of that in.

> I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one.

There was for a time a micro-industry of people taking flights to this location on Youtube -- it's one of the most fun examples of this that I've seen.

And yeah; really quickly people discovered that he genuinely had options.

There is a question I've not seen answered yet. Did the wallet guys know he was doing this in advance?

> 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?

> 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.

This is what I thought at the time. It just goes to show that guys like this project their own stupidity onto their audiences (this is not always an unsuccessful strategy)

You're not factoring in the "He's the guy that crashed a plane!" impact on all his future earnings.

He was speculating to accumulate.

There may be no meaningful legal sanction for this.

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".

He is a fairly skilled parachutist and was wearing a skydiving rig. He also knew where he was putting his plane down.

So he might have got to it.

But on the other hand he's also an idiot.

Nevertheless he at least thought he might have to do this.

5. Quit and do something actually worthwhile for education with whatever sum you earned from this blend of entitlement, carelessness and greed.

No, this happens -- in really horrifying situations.

This is a fair assessment.

There is another strategy than asking them to remove it, though. Ask them to qualify it. I've done this in the past (a long time ago, mind you, and in the UK, where employers are still somewhat bound by decency as well as law). I was asked to sign an extensive NDA for a short period of employment, and I agreed, on the condition that I could decline to join any meeting that wasn't strictly related to the project I was hired on, and that the same NDA bound them when discussing my personal projects.