https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/youtube-lgbt-restricted-mode/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/youtube-lgbt-restricted-mo... Granted YouTube does still exis

https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/youtube-lgbt-restricted-mode/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/youtube-lgbt-restricted-mo... Granted YouTube does still exist in the year 2022 so it had done its due diligence when it comes to representing and supporting LGBTQ+. But even 10 years ago there wasn't as much pressure to do so. Same sex marriage was only legalized last decade. >Maybe you're okay with hyper sexualized content I explicitly said that LGBTQ+ content could be demonetized _despite_ the fact it's not hyper sexual. >but seems YouTube made the calculus they have more to gain keeping a wider audience than having a wider range of content. >For YouTube, they are appeasing advertisers who do not want to align their brands with provocative content. Neither of these are necessarily ethical goals (what if we're in Gilead and a woman showing her ankles is considered provocative). And I would argue that YouTube, by virtue of its near monopolistic power and pervasive reach, has some obligation to act ethically. And to be fair, they have got a little better at doing that specifically in regards to LGBTQ+ content over the past couple years, but we should remember that that wasn't the case and isn't necessarily the case.