No, I think they are referring to YouTube's early days, where the company allowed/encouraged (and even participated in) the upload of
huge amount of unlicensed content.
It's a fair comparison, but I suppose YouTube had:
(a) the veneer of being a platform to "upload/share your own videos" (c.f. Grooveshark, which was solely for copyrighted music)
(b) savvier management (?) who knew how to play the media/copyright business.
