Youtube prohibits authors of poltical videos from selling ads-and some activists actually object

On the 3ed of September, an image appeared on twitter from an account simply labelled as "anonymous" with a Guy Fawlkes mask along with charges that Youtube is censoring activist video not be taking it down but rather by forbidding posters from selling additional ads ("revenue sharing") on them. Youtube does not consider social activist video "ad-safe," just as some activists do not consider anticapitalist video made for the purpose of selling corporations' ads "hypocrisy safe." For Youtube to offer to air the videos, just not to offer to permit posters to sell corporate ads on them is not censorship of anything but the ads themselves. The themselves are unlikely to object to that "censorship."

Even aside from the hypocrisy of selling ads on videos condemning capitalism, there are also the security and privacy implications of linking a Youtube account to any kind of online financial account. Presumably to "monetize" a Youtube account requires connection to some kind of bank account, Paypal account, etc. These could be used as proof of the poster's identity good enough for a court of law with all the associated hazards of subpeonas, police raids, etc. Thus, Youtube's decision to refuse to allow posters of "controversial" videos to sell preroll or overlay ads on their videos could have the unintended effect of protecting someone from a grand jury witch-hunt or denying police the address of someone holding raw clips desired by prosecuting attorneys.

The only censorship potential here is if Google decides that they can't sell their OWN ads next to the clips-and thus decide to take them down, de-prioritize them in Youtube's search function, reduce bandwidth, refuse to offer higher resolutions, or otherwise interfere with free as opposed to paid distribution. Back in 2011, Livestream did not want to get hammered for censorship when their advertisers objected to appearing on Livestream videos, so to protect their reputation they stepped up to the plate and give Occupy an ad-free channel. That way their advertisers did not have to appear on non- "ad-safe" video, Occupy videos could still air on the site, and the bandwidth for one non ad supported channel probably cost them much less than the loss of users a censorship controvery would have cost them. There were no complaints to be heard anywhere about this.