If the video goes down and fewer people see it, fewer people die. How was the censorship pointless? You didn't "solve" any problems, you just ignored the actual complexity of the real world to uphold your ideals.
If someone is dying because of a video, the fix is not in removal of the video. Sure, you can put labels agains poor judgement like they do on physical products.
It might not be 'the' fix but it could be 'a' fix. If your interest is preventing deaths that is.
The point is, for "a fix" of an issue we are trading things and I don't find it a good trade. Total unchallenged censorship is ot a good compromise to "save the kids".
Isn't it the case that the dangerous video was left up while the criticism was removed?
> How was the censorship pointless?
I'm talking specifically about private censorship.