[rpcastagna]

>> What do they gain from removing advertising from any video? Any money you make is money they make.

> They would gain more advertisers paying them money to advertise with them.

I don't really understand what you're saying here. Why would more advertisers pay them money if less videos had advertisements?

[lmm]

Advertisers will pay them more money if they can be confident their adverts won't be placed on videos where they would negatively impact the advertiser's brand.

[Ph0X]

So you're telling me that this probably significant percentage of Youtube creators whose videos fully adhere to the rules and have never had any problems could potentially gain a lot more money for their hard work if these few rare cases decides to clean up their videos a bit to follow rules that have been there for years and that they've agreed to when signing up?

Sounds like a fantastic deal to me, and I don't see why all those other creators should be punished just so that a few can gain money making content that is against the stated rules.

And again, this isn't censorship, if that content is really important to you, it will still be there for everyone to see, just not monetized.

[qwertyuiop924]

This time, you make a valid point, although I'm still not sure if you really understand the landscape.

The problem is, it's more than just a few rare cases: everyone from VEVO, to tiny channels, to the biggest channels on youtube, have been breaking these rules for years. And even if they don't think they have been, you can probably find violating content somewhere on the channel if you look hard enough, because the new rules are pretty broad. And the fact that the rules aren't being enforced equally makes it all the more BS, even if it's YouTube's prerogative to do so anyways.