Some would see Youtube's action as censorship, others might see it as consumer protection. Youtube does ban certain types of ads in their system based on consumer protection. For example, they recently banned "payday loan" companies from advertising on the site. Scott Grove himself says that Youtube deleted most of his teaser videos because of the excessive negative comments. ...
.
Protection of whom from what? Protecting people from seeing free "lessons" that give an idea what someone will teach in paid "lessons"? You and I may think they're not useful, but it's pretty clear that not everyone sees it this way. I see no "fraud" here - what you see in the youtube vids seems to be what you gets in the paid videos. Granted, I don't like his approach either; but in a twisted, miscreant sort of way, they're at least more entertaining than most TV ads I see, many of which I consider outright misleading in the extreme. But the FCC doesn't ban them because they surmise that they stay just this side of the "fraud" line.
Of course, google can do whatever they want - they own youtube, no argument there. Social engineering is alive and well, even in corporate America. But I think it's misguided and futile - he still has tons of videos out there (I just looked) and is gonna sell his paid videos one way or another. Too late to close the barn door after the horse has bolted, as they say. So I still think it would be better to leave them out there and have free flow of information about them, con and (believe it or not) pro - yes some people seem to like them. No accounting for tastes, I guess.
How about all the really trashy music out there on youtube, and elsewhere? Do (or should) "they" (whomever "they" are) decide what's "trashy enough" to remove? There's some pretty outrageous stuff out there, has been for years. Call me crazy, but I'd like to see just a hair of consistency when advocating policies like this.
No easy answers here, is all I'm saying.