Demonetization as a feature comes from the advertisers' desire, not from YouTube itself. Advertisers are very sensitive about what they will allow their brands to be associated with, and they demand the tools to configure their ad campaigns to not display on broad swaths of potentially offensive content. YouTube has had some huge issues with advertiser complaints of ads on offensive content in the past. If anything, YouTube should be praised for continuing to host demonetized content at a loss, since it's not making any advertising revenue for them.

People who make non-advertiser-friendly videos need to figure out some other kind of way to make their money. Patreon is excellent for that.

There are people that make Linux Tutorial Videos that have were Demonetized, it is not just "non-advertiser friendly" political content.

Further I do not buy the Not Ad friendly BS, there are TONS of Advertisers that would put (and have to try to buy ads) on some of those channels but Youtube either refuses them as Advertisers or otherwise does not give the Advertisers the proper control to pick and choose which channels they want to out ads on, it says you video is not ad friendly and that is that, the advertiser has not input in it.

Finally Advertisers care about eyeballs, they really do not care about the content of the ads UNTIL they get people complaining or boycotting their product.

Today there are a small number of permanently and perpetually offended people that are VERY vocal, and VERY loud on social media that have wielded undue influence over these YT Advertisers with their threats of boycotts and outrage. These people have no respect for the freedom of expression, and desire nothing more than to shut down the speech of anyone they disagree with.

It would be nice if they let you buy ads on "demonetized" videos at an extreme discount. I'm sure many companies would be more than happy to get cheaper ads and aren't that sensitive to brand association concerns.

> There are people that make Linux Tutorial Videos that have were Demonetized

source on this? I'd like to read more

Joe Collins was one example I was referring to in my comment, YT has since monetized his videos but here is the source where he Expresses his Frustration with YT not just in the current round but his experiences over the Years,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dgHf6iuvrI

YouTube is the only option. Smart businesspeople (i.e. most channels over 500k or even 200k subs) have alternate sources of revenue, mainly sponsorships but also Patreon.

It's almost like you forgot Vimeo

I didn't forget Vimeo. YouTube is so dominant that, since everyone else is on YouTube, uploading videos elsewhere is career suicide. No one will switch websites or apps to watch just one creator's content.

One of the keys to YouTube's success is its sub feed. All the videos from all my favorite channels, all in one place. It's extremely convenient. People tend to take the path of least resistance.

But Vimeo isn't, and doesn't want to be, YouTube.

Oh god please no

Case in point:

https://twitter.com/lazygamereviews/status/89825992922771046...

I mean its also youtube so .. who cares

Yes, who cares about the world's (by far) largest and most popular video distribution site?

Because it's operated on the whims of a 3rd party whose primary concern is ad revenue. It's disappointing that historically important videos are being deleted but unless they introduce a new program for long term archival YT isn't really the place to store them.