# Any reason a local newspaper might not want to link directly to Youtube?

**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reason-a-local-newspaper-might-not-want-to-link-directly-to-youtube/389819
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion
**Created:** [January 28, 2007, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reason-a-local-newspaper-might-not-want-to-link-directly-to-youtube/389819 "2007-01-28T06:10:14Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2007, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reason-a-local-newspaper-might-not-want-to-link-directly-to-youtube/389819/1 "2007-01-28T06:10:14Z")

</div>

A local paper is doing a package on Youtube. Not once in either story do they mention that the actual address of the site is [Youtube.com](http://Youtube.com) – it’s always just “Youtube.”

What’s more, in a prominent spot on the page, they list a link to visit: Not [youtube.com](http://youtube.com), but “[topyoutubevideos.com](http://topyoutubevideos.com)”.

Is there any logical reason they’d do this? What is “[topyoutubevideos.com](http://topyoutubevideos.com)” anyway? It looks a little seedy. Why not just go to youtube and use their “most popular,” “highest rated,” and so on?

I’m considering giving the newsroom a call on Monday, but since they’re closed now, I figured I’d let you folks have a crack at it first. Any takers?