This is a self-inflicted problem for YouTube, and with each move they make in this direction, they more indelibly associate themselves with the idea that they e

This is a self-inflicted problem for YouTube, and with each move they make in this direction, they more indelibly associate themselves with the idea that they endorse each and every ad on their platform, as well as where it's shown. They could have told Sleeping Giants to go fuck themselves back in 2016 and avoided the whole adpocalypse timeline; but now they started and can't stop. People only see it as "YT funding sex-related content" because YouTube repeatedly endorsed that way of reframing and redefining video ad revenues. Imagine if instead, it was framed as: "YouTube makes money off YouTubers' content; their 45% cut is entirely parasitic, YouTube is price-gouging and rent-seeking due to stronger network effects than any other platform on Earth; and YouTube creators are entitled to keep 100% (or, let's say 90% after hosting and fees) of the revenue they generate, not 55%." (yeah, Google's cut is 45%, not 30%, hah. 30% is practically a gift.) See how bad that would be for Google? So they go all in on the colorful, bubbly, "we care about you"-teddy-bear, 'Sleeping Giants' train, because they'd rather have progressivism than "Marxism." I just wonder how it's been so effective, and why they garner so much less criticism than the App Store for doing far worse (there's no "video platform duopoly" unlike App Stores, it's just a monopoly).