Within a couple of hours of the shootings in Kaujahoki, several videos posted by the YouTube user Wumpscut86 had been taken down by the site.

The videos showed a man shooting a pistol on what looked like a firing range.

The videos did not appear to contravene the site’s rules covering offensive content which state that: “Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don’t post it. There is zero tolerance for predatory behaviour, stalking, threats, harassment.”

But those searching for the videos found a message stating: “This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.”

It seems that YouTube has decided that videos showing the killer were offensive and should not be viewed. But that is a moral decision, based presumably on the hindsight that this man and this pistol were involved in real killings.

And this the crux of the problem for YouTube and its owners Google who have set themselves up not as moral arbiters of the web and its content, but as agents through whom “creativity” can flow.

So why the moral stance here? YouTube told Times Online it was preparing a response but the company faces a massive problem as it wrestles with its responsibilities.

As the world’s must successful video-sharing website, it contains many millions of short clips of film. As estimated 13 hours of video is uploaded every minute into the site.

The company refuses actively to police its content and relies instead on users to flag up videos that might contravene its community guidelines. An unknown number of YouTube staff then review the flagged items and then decide whether to remove them.

The flag system is under the microscope at the moment. The problem of delays in removing offensive clips was raised by MPs earlier this year and the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee have called on YouTube to do more to seek out actively inappropriate material.

The scale of the policing problem facing YouTube was exemplified as dozens of new versions of the videos were uploaded by users to the site almost as fast as staff could take them down. This included one clip of the shooter firing at the camera, which was not originally on YouTube and clearly violates its guidelines. The original clips were also easily viewable on several other video websites which could be found using a simple Google search.

A YouTube spokeswoman said the new context of the shooting made the original videos posted by Saari unacceptable.

She said: "Our heart goes out to the families who have lost loved ones in this tragedy. The original videos did not contravene our community guidelines until today's incident, which put them in a new context. They were removed and the account was disabled as soon as we became aware that the user in question may be connected to this incident.

"Let's remember that hundreds of thousands of videos are uploaded to YouTube every day, the vast majority of which contain great content that entertains, inspires, or educates our users. As stated in our Community Guidelines, we have a zero tolerance policy for threats and incitement to violence."

The spokeswoman said that no vetting system was perfect and that YouTube had concluded that its flagging system was most efficient at dealing with offensive content.

Many would like YouTube and Google to put away its philosophical objections to censorship and simply spend the money to give the site more upfront regulation. It is not as if Google does not have the cash.

It should be said that such regulation would almost certainly not have prevented Maati Saari from posting his videos on YouTube. But by taking them down YouTube has acknowledged that taste and decency must have a role to play in vetting content. And that they are the arbiters of that. Will they do it proactively?

And while they are about it – will they take down a video showing last year's Finnish school killer Pekka-Eric Auvinen testing his gun? It’s been watched more than 9,000 times.

Explore Tech & Web

• Personal Tech

• The Web

• Gadgets & Gaming