No, I meant people who fall for that scam, not the perpetrators.

Fuck off, shill. No, you are not just really into nuclear power. You are a shill. A person with enough of a brain to write two coherent sentences would understand that this is bollocks: "They can burn the oil underground to keep the CO2 there, then extract CO2 from the air to combine with the hydrogen and energy produced to create carbon neutral fuels." To write this anyway means you are full of shit.

Do people exist who are dumb enough to believe that?

We're talking about in-demand "information" here, not some obscure web site, information so in demand apparently that deleting it from just one site is seen as exceptionally difficult. This difficulty is not the result of a moderation system that isn't good enough. My point is that a moderation system which could reliably eradicate these videos at least from video sharing sites should not be a goal. The people who demand this ask for the impossible, unless they accept that an oppressive tool of extraordinary power and danger would have to be created to satisfy their requirements. And they would still not be able to prevent private sharing of this content which has the allure of being forbidden and rare. They're going after Pornhub now because they want preventative measures (i.e. censorship) and they don't care about the collateral damage. You correctly alluded to other prohibitions. Let's not do that.

You can only have an open society if you do not tightly censor the flow of information, but then you can't expect to keep information hidden. A perfect "moderation" system can't exist or it will be used for oppression. That's not because we can't stay away from fascism but because information is, by its nature, extremely diffusive. A system which can nail down information has to be so all encompassing that it on its own practically fits the definition of fascism. This is an observation from experience that many people have expressed in many ways. "You can't delete something from the internet" is one way of saying it, but I like "information wants to be free" better, because it expresses the observation without limiting it to a particular mode of diffusion.

"Information wants to be free" originally meant that information ought to be free ("no payment necessary"). I think It's much more insightful as an observation about the nature of information. Obviously information doesn't want anything. It's not a conscious entity. But it spreads like it has a mind of its own, determined to be free, and free in this case means free from control. A system which allows people to communicate cannot defeat that. It takes a horrendously oppressive society to come anywhere near being able to control the flow of information. Do not attempt to get to a system that can reliably control which information is out there. Down that path lies fascism.

Do you think anyone cares how you feel when your favorite magician mugs you? Here's what counts: You accepted the privacy intrusion and did not return the product. In your words: "I’m not about to incinerate my Wacom tablet and buy a different one. These things are expensive, and privacy is hard to put a price on." That's called being part of the problem, not the solution.

There is only content that you get paid for and content that people get for free.

I wonder how these prices are set. "I mean, it's one banana. How much could it cost? Ten dollars?"

Exactly. (Many slow and not some fast) is not true if (some fast) is true. But after having watched the video, I have to admit there is virtually no other traffic, so Google really only has the 99 phones to go by.

How do you know it's not just two full coaches on a sightseeing tour? If you can drive the normal speed, does it matter if one lane is jammed? Is that a realistic scenario or would the cars in the jammed lane switch to another lane and either dissolve the traffic jam or make all lanes jammed?

Huh? Is it really a traffic jam if there are 99 phones going slow and everybody else going the normal speed on the same street?

Change
if (many slow) then jammed;
to
if (many slow and not some fast) then jammed;