I think you are confusing Youtube with a NGO. Google is a for profit company. Their mission is to make money, not to archive the internet.
They are not your friend. Nor anybody's friend.
They are not your friend. Nor anybody's friend.
>Their mission is to make money, not to archive the internet.
So how did deleting this make YouTube money?
I assume they remove "violent" videos to appease advertisers. In this case, they did not consider the value of the video being removed, instead prioritizing the safety of the content with respect to the advertisers.
In the large, YouTube's terms of service are structured around retaining an audience (both in terms of individual and institutional choice... Without a TOS that at least nominally says what constitutes offensive content, businesses and schools block access to YouTube and that decreases viewership which decreases revenue potential). They are also structured around being a hospitable place for advertising, and advertising (in particular brand advertising) gets real gun-shy on spending dollars on content that might be significantly off the bead from "wholesome."
Whether or not this video in particular violates the TOS is debatable (though having never heard of this before this link on Hacker News, my naive read on it is that it's simple violent aggression and a display of unadulterated physical violence, which generally doesn't pass the TOS for graphic violence... "Content featuring anything listed above where the viewer is not given enough context to understand that the footage is dramatized or fictional").