Hateful content: Content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity, or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization.
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.
Incendiary and demeaning content: Content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning. For example, video content that uses gratuitously disrespectful language that shames or insults an individual or group.
How the fuck can this even be considered clarification? The criteria is so broad, it basically means whatever they want it to mean. If I make an hour long video, but call @Polsaker a cunt at the 45 minute mark, will I lose all of my ad money because I am being hateful towards Argentinians?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.