I can't believe that they don't have a specific policy for simply disabling links...or apparently even the capability. Disabling all links on someone's vids and even censoring might be a horrible repercussion for hate speech or other violations.

In regards to Steven Crowder, bullying someone in regards to their sexuality and nationality is clearly not acceptable...and it probably was hate speech. They kinda messed up saying that it wasn't though. There are a limited number of ads on the platform as well. I don't see why someone contributing to bullying on the service should be one of those to profit from it.

But in regards to the greater matter, I should have realized that YouTube would use their changes to just carpet bomb everyone. YouTube seems to be incapable of intelligent careful action. I think that perhaps they likely have a bunch of different content "police" that don't necessarily communicate well, and clearly don't arrive at opinions based on committee or anything like that. They also seem to possibly have quite a few people that are poorly trained and do not understand the cultural significance of what they're policing.

It should likely require more than just one idiot to decide to ban someone. For some reason every time they go through these sorts of bans, they always seem to catch journalists and innocents. What idiot bans a journalist for reporting on something? Sure, I can understand maybe a Fox news correspondent for making one of their horrible comments, but not an actual journalist. And what idiot gave that idiot the power to ban someone under their sole discretion?

They should have a number of people flagging things for possible demonetization, and then more highly trained people determining if it should be demonetized, and then passing it up for possibly disabling the video, and then possibly passing it up to another group for banning.