YouTube has been Corrupted

The resolution is that "Youtube has been corrupted." My opponent has proposed no standard other than mine from which it can be corrupted. Therefore, Youtube will only be corrupted if my opponent's response support a charge that Youtube no longer "provide[s] fast and easy video access and the ability to share videos frequently." His response does not, therefore Youtube has not been corrupted. "Anyways, more and more videos are being removed because of content." It is irrelevant if some videos are removed if Youtube continues to provide fast and easy video access and the ability to share videos frequently. Youtube is doing this. http://youtube-global.blogspot.com... Now more vidoes can be shared. Perhaps they won't stay up very long, but they will be shared. "One of the biggest issues is music. If you use music and don't credit it, then the audio is usually disabled. Sometimes, even if credited, the audio is still removed." That is because they are unlicensed reproductions of others' original works of authorship that have been fixed in a tangible medium of expression. http://www.copyright.gov... Youtube can not allow violators of US copyright laws to continue to display their unlicensed reproductions on its website or it could face a contributory infringement lawsuit. Every living organism has the right to lawfully see to its own survival. Surely a company is not corrupted when it does the same thing. "Also, they're putting more movies and tv shows on YouTube." My opponent is arguing that Youtube is getting worse because it is adding more content. More content would seem to necessarily equal more videos being shared. Therefore, Youtube is acting according to its mission statement to see to it that more videos can be shared frequently. " YouTube doesn't need to start putting shows there too. That's what Hulu is for, which ironically is the source of most of these clips." My opponent is now arguing for Youtube's corruption, as the elimination of content would reduce the number of videos shared. "In addition, the ratings are no longer visible, so nobody can tell what videos are crap, and which ones are worth watching." As a result, more people will check out videos they otherwise would not have seen, improving the likely transmission (sharing) of videos. "smaller channels are practically invisible ... the only videos in the videos tab are videos about popular subjects." Is there really something wrong with giving people what they want? If you know what you want, look for it. Youtube is getting so big you should be able to find just about anything. For example, I just entered Drunken Cookie Monster. Well, whatta ya know ... (See Vid) http://www.youtube.com... " is it really necessary to make a channel just for your cat? Another unreasonable change to YouTube is the overused censorship." Some people like cats. And not just any cat. Your cat, in particular. So yes, they do need that channel. ;) "Some videos that have nothing offensive in them have been removed for no reason. This is why YouTube has been corrupted." Offensive content could also result in legal troubles, as per the copyright issue. Additionally, removing videos does not prevent their sharing, as they are shared the moment they are uploaded. "Share -To relate (a secret or experience, for example) to another or others." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... The moment you upload a video to the Youtube site, you share it with the Youtube administrators ... who may or may not believe it is in the best interest of Youtube to share it with others. Either way, Youtube has not been corrupted. It has just been commercialized. My opponent has therefore failed to warrant his claim that Youtube has been corrupted. Ergo, I strongly urge a Con vote. Thank you for the debate!