Striek writes:
On Wednesday, several YouTube creators posted videos that voiced concerns over the platform’s process of demonetizing videos for not being friendly to advertisers.
Many YouTube creators have similar concerns — that no, this isn't censorship in the strictest sense, but that YouTube owes its users a better commitment to free speech than most private companies due to its dominant marketplace position. Its criteria for videos being "advertiser-friendly" are also incredibly vague or restrictive, or both:
Content that is considered inappropriate for advertising includes:
Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language
Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items
Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown
You read that right — any YouTube video covering any war or natural disaster is considered inappropriate for advertising — which essentially includes all news and current events shows. This might not seem like a big deal to many people, but it would be, if you made your living creating YouTube videos. So while technically not censorship, many people are arguing YouTube has gone a few steps too far with this, and are likewise worried that this will be too selectively enforced.