YouTube is demonetizing many videos published by the Rubin Report on the Google-owned video platform, according to tweets from Dave Rubin on Wednesday.
Demonetized videos of the Rubin Report include interviews with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Adam Carolla, Brigitte Gabriel, Rita Panahi, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jason Whitlock, and others.
Demonetization occurs when YouTube deems the content of a video hosted on its platform as unsuitable for advertising, using nebulous language. Read part of its demonetization policy below:
Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.
Drugs and dangerous products or substances: Video content that promotes or features the sale, use, or abuse of illegal drugs, regulated drugs or substances, or other dangerous products is not eligible for advertising. Videos discussing drugs or dangerous substances for educational, documentary, and artistic purposes are generally eligible for advertising, so long as drug use or substance abuse is not graphic or glorified.
Harmful or dangerous acts: Video content that promotes harmful or dangerous acts that result in serious physical, emotional, or psychological injury is not eligible for advertising. Some examples include videos depicting painful or invasive surgical or cosmetic procedures, or pranks involving sexual harassment or humiliation.
Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.
Inappropriate language: Video content that contains frequent uses of strong profanity or vulgarity throughout the video may not be eligible for advertising. Occasional use of profanity won’t necessarily result in your video being ineligible for advertising, but context matters.
Inappropriate use of family entertainment characters: Videos depicting family entertainment characters or content, whether animated or live action, engaged in violent, sexual, vile, or otherwise inappropriate behavior, even if done for comedic or satirical purposes, are not eligible for advertising.
Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.
Sexually suggestive content: Video content that features highly sexualized content, such as video content where the focal point is nudity, body parts, or sexual simulations, is not eligible for advertising. Content that features sex toys, sexual devices, or explicit conversation about sex may also not be eligible for advertising, with limited exceptions for non-graphic sexual education videos.
Violence: Video content where the focal point is on blood, violence, or injury, when presented without additional context, is not eligible for advertising. Violence in the normal course of video gameplay is generally acceptable for advertising, but montages where gratuitous violence is the focal point is not. If you’re showing violent content in a news, educational, artistic, or documentary context, that additional context is important.
Google’s left-wing censorship — along with other “social media” technology companies — was ramped up after 2016’s presidential election under the guise of battling “fake news.”
Google openly advertises its active measures to subvert meritocracy in pursuit of “diversity.” In August, the company terminated an employee for composing an explanatory memo regarding sociological differences between male and females regarding disparities in employment across the technology industry. The terminated employee speculated that Google’s hiring practices may be violative of anti-discrimination laws on the bases of race and sex.
“Don’t be evil” used to be Google’s company motto.
Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.