> (if enforced) The enforcement already started with Philip DeFranco's videos[1], and quickly spread to various other youtubers. The targets seem to be the usu

> (if enforced) The enforcement already started with Philip DeFranco's videos[1], and quickly spread to various other youtubers. The targets seem to be the usual "controversial" topics and political content in general. Videos about depression seem to be one of the targets[2]? Maybe? There also seems to be inconsistency between hitting certain popular youtubers that produce some form of "news"[3], while allowing blatant clickbait, bullying, and propaganda[4] about the same topics. > so vaguely it's almost meaningless That's vague enough, but their cornerstone of selective enforcement will be the "...but is not limited to..." clause. > otherwise they could well kill a large percentage of the site's traffic I fear that may be the goal. If YouTube isn't profitable for Google, they may want to cut their expenses by encouraging some of their heavier users off the site. [1] https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771026030442090496 https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771026030442090496 https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771054150733803521 https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771054150733803521 [2] https://twitter.com/LukeIsNotSexy/status/771124768280043521 https://twitter.com/LukeIsNotSexy/status/771124768280043521 [3] I'm being very generous in what might be called "news". I may not like a lot of it, but even shallow clickbait can contain at least some journalism. [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEUR7xsAtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEUR7xsAtA