that's a matter of opinion. i find YouTube filled with plenty of videos I would deem immoral, harmful, abhorrent. they remain there. and that's fine, nobody forces me to watch them.

Child pornography is a "matter of opinion"? That's what I was getting at - probably the one thing we make no carve outs for as a society.

I have difficulties to understand opinions that tolerates child pornography. and while it is without doubt a problem, I think it would be pointing at a tree to hide the forest to discuss illegal pornographic content. what's more at stake is divergent thoughts that are curtailed by opinionated (if not politicised) authorities. Law enforcements would remain active in prosecuting illegal content publishers. this thread more specifically touches on freedom for consumers to pull DRM content somewhat gated behind official clients, and the war between copyright holders and the conscious consumers. an alternative to YouTube where publishers and viewers can more freely operate is undoubtedly a step forward, and the collateral potential consequences don't outweigh the benefits.

if what you beleive in is prison to keep everyone safe, it may be exactly what's coming very fast at us if you haven't noticed.

Should child pornography be removed from such a service? Regardless of law enforcement actions. After the criminals are in jail (or not), is the content just still readily available?

How is it decided who removes it - who moderates the service?

Technically, how is it removed?