No, the beef is with YouTube. They could offer advertisers the option to pay more and only advertise on “high-quality” content, or pay less and advertise everywhere.
Make it a slider with example videos and let them select what they’re comfortable with.
Instead, they went with no choice and arbitrary demonetization cutoffs.
If P&G doesn’t like my shaky repair videos on niche products that nobody else has made, fine. But P&G shouldn’t dictate what’s worthy of advertising or not for every other advertiser AND publisher.
The advertisers on YouTube bargain as a collective. Sure 3-4 multinationals have a larger voice than the others, but they all took collective action to force YouTube to change their ways. It wasn't just P&G. It's no different than if a group of people staged a boycott - sure there might be some people who don't agree with the boycott, but the point of the boycott is to make a big enough voice to force another entity's hand.
If you don't like it, do your own sales. If you don't want to do that, then start publishing the sterile, family friendly, broad content that the advertiser-class is willing to pay for.
I struggle with this line of thinking because it's not specific enough. YouTube doesn't act as a gatekeeper for most video content. You can upload almost anything you want as long as its not grotesque or copyrighted. What most people mean when they say YouTube acts as a gatekeeper is "will YouTube pay me for the content I upload". And the problem with that is the advertisers, not YouTube - a handful of large advertisers decided they didn't like a lot of the content on YouTube and refused to pay for it. The beef is with the advertisers, not YouTube.
I do have a problem with the videos YouTube decides to promote and surface, but when it becomes to the topic and censorship and deplatforming, the argument almost always boils down to "Proctor and Gamble need to pay me to upload content whether they want to or not", which I find asinine. YouTube is obligated to provide you with a sales team.