Off-topic, I think, writing this down to see if the logic is sound:
If YouTube can demonetise a content creator at the discretion of YouTube (because they can), then surely it follows that an individual can de-monetise a content creator at their own discretion (because they can).
A platform demonetising someone is surely of much greater impact than an individual doing it. A platform owns their platform, from which the content is being delivered and so their discretion is justification enough. An individual owns the hardware and bandwidth upon and through which the content is being played, and so their discretion is justification enough.
Am I performing the mental gynastics of denial to make that leap?
Part of the differentiation I'm making in using the word "discretion" is that it's not illegal content that's being demonetised. Agree or disagree or find it as morally reprehensible as you feel the need to, the content itself (the very thing being demonetised) is not illegal. And, in fact, had been happily monetised for the past however long.
If YouTube can demonetise a content creator at the discretion of YouTube (because they can), then surely it follows that an individual can de-monetise a content creator at their own discretion (because they can).
A platform demonetising someone is surely of much greater impact than an individual doing it. A platform owns their platform, from which the content is being delivered and so their discretion is justification enough. An individual owns the hardware and bandwidth upon and through which the content is being played, and so their discretion is justification enough.
Am I performing the mental gynastics of denial to make that leap?
Part of the differentiation I'm making in using the word "discretion" is that it's not illegal content that's being demonetised. Agree or disagree or find it as morally reprehensible as you feel the need to, the content itself (the very thing being demonetised) is not illegal. And, in fact, had been happily monetised for the past however long.