YouTube has "clarified" their policies on restricting content creator's ad income depending on the content they upload

associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization.

This is a very common SJW thing those types of people often talk about - in the same way as "you can't be racist against whites because racism includes the systematic power to oppress" (it doesn't), it sounds like the only hateful content that would fall under this classification would be those that have been associated with discrimination or marginalization. I guess in the past, since it's not clear. Just saying no to all of those things in general is no good, I guess - it has to be with certain groups that are more equal than others.

Inappropriate use of family entertainment characters: Content that depicts family entertainment characters engaged in violent, sexual, vile, or otherwise inappropriate behavior, even if done for comedic or satirical purposes.

I suppose this is the rash of videos that have lots of children's characters (like Spider-Man or Elsa from Frozen) engaging in behavior that is definitely generally considered not for kids. But maybe not.

For example, video content that uses gratuitously disrespectful language that shames or insults an individual or group.

Emphasis mine. If your content reaches doubleungood levels of disrespect, as determined by our neutral Ministers of Love (who are never subject to confirmation bias, subjective views, or anything else that undermines human beings' abilities to make perfect choices), you may be de-monetized!

Ugh. There's another page which actually has some clarifications.

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Emphasis theirs. So if you wanted to say, make an analysis video about the current War in Afghanistan, you're automatically out since it pertains to an ongoing war; not matter how neutral or informed your video is.

Drugs and dangerous products or substances: Video content that promotes or features the sale, use, or abuse of illegal drugs, regulated drugs or substances, or other dangerous products is not eligible for advertising. Videos discussing drugs or dangerous substances for educational, documentary, and artistic purposes are generally eligible for advertising, so long as drug use or substance abuse is not graphic or glorified.

Boy, I sure do hate clarity. And I love subjective "video-eligibility-checkers" deciding what is or isn't "glorifying drug use" or deciding what is or isn't an "other dangerous product".

I mean, it all makes sense; it makes total sense. But the broadness of the language combined with the fact that someone has to decide what is appropriate for monetization and what isn't just screams more confusion, potential for abuse, and more frustration for people who rely on this kind of stuff for their livelihood.

No humor, wit, comedy, expressing of ideas, display of facts/truth that shed light on popular stupidity, hell we just want to fuck you out of ad revenue and keep it for ourselves.

In all seriousness though, what happens if there is an AVGN video depicting an NES character doing something "violent"?

It could be argued that the video shouldn't generate ad money under these rules.

As it has ever been: if you want to spread your message don't become dependent on someone else's platform.

You give up editorial control when you rely on existing platforms and media channels. Those platforms are interested in promoting themselves: attracting you, the content creator, is how they do it. They don't care about your message.

A quote from Ted Carpenter in 1970, in the foreword to They Became What They Beheld:

Utilizing existing channels can wipe out a statement. There is a widely accepted misconception that media merely serve as neutral packages for the dissemination of raw facts. Photographers once thought that by getting their photographs published in Life, they would thereby reach large audiences. Gradually they discovered that the only message that came through was Life magazine itself and that their pictures had become but bits & pieces of that message.

The same thing occurs on TV guest shows. Guests accept invitations to appear on programs in the hopes that their messages will reach new & wider audiences, but even when they are treated in a friendly manner, they come away with a sense of failure. Somehow the message transmitted is far removed from the messages intended.