"YouTube has no ethics, it's being created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money." Do you agree?

First of all, in the question, "no ethics" is defined as not possessing a set of moral principles or values* and YouTube is to be created to meet the objective of being a medium of amusement and making profit. I do not agree with the motion, as YouTube is created for people to share their knowledge and disseminate information too.

Indeed, YouTube is a source of entertainment for everyone in the world and it is a medium where companies can post videos to advertise about themselves or their products. However, it is gradually being used to educate people on health matters.

Like Phil Commander, people use YouTube (1) to share health advice with the mass. To illustrate, Phil Commander shared on ways of encouraging autistic children to communicate with people through posting of a series of tutorials on YouTube. Besides being posted by non-professionals, there are also health related videos posted by the professionals. For example, there is a clinic in the United Kingdom that posted videos, demonstrating how to test blood sugar levels and use an inhaler (1), on YouTube.
Therefore, the creation of YouTube is not only for meeting the purpose of entertaining and making money and since it is also used by people for a good cause, that is, to share medical related information, it is incorrect to say that YouTube possess no moral values. Thus, I do not agree with the statement, “YouTube has no ethics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.”


* Definition from http://dictionary.reference.com.
(1) Article taken from http://www.newscientist.com.
02 January 2007 . NewScientist.com news service. By Roxanne Khamsi.