:Hello,  

 :Did you just say the video was taken from a secondary source? I am talking about this sentence: "As usual, several websites are reporting the video". YouTube videos are acceptable when they are embedded inside a reliable source, e.g. a PC World article by an acceptable author that has received editing from the magazine editor. It is the magazine, e.g. PC World, that adds credibility. Stripping the  resource is similar to stripping a book of its cover and biographic profile (that contains title, author, ISBN, publisher, etc.), then using it as a source while representing it as "a heap of paper I just found". As Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources mentions, a reliable source has three pillars: Content, author, editor. 

 :As for fake videos on YouTube; no three person would enter a studio to film person impersonating a Microsoft authority interviewing Bliss photographer. I am afraid the real world is far more relentless. The fake part usually constitutes one word in a sentence that makes the whole different. And yes, things are starting to become personal; not Hollywood personal (at least not me), but like I said, the real world is far more relentless: It is butterfly effect. 

 :Best regards, 
 :