Initially, before I was Outed I could not explain any of it. Which was...frustrating at the time to say the least. Now, as shitty as getting Outted was I can at least reference part of the explanation: https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/139660466709473690...
But as to the rest, I'm still on the fence. I'd like to explain, but these things are very personal, and if I won't explain, I understand why people assume the most likely explanation even if it's unflattering to me. As I said, I'm very aware of my own role in all this.
I mean the demonetization and ToS stuff on YouTube isn't really about Google trying to enforce their morals onto the rest of the world, it's mostly about them making money.
Even today, there's a surprisingly high number of very conservative people living in the US & EU. That's why abortions are illegal (or a gray area) and why questions like "Is it immoral for unmarried women to get pregnant?" still get almost 50% yes. Plus the US has a really odd relationship with breasts. Murder on TV is fine but show titties and you're adult-only. I believe it's because so many people are devoted Christians and have matching puritan views. People still say "god bless America" quite often if you consider that modern science suggests that god probably doesn't exist.
With that in mind, any content that might anger or drive away the more conservative &/ religious half of YouTube's viewers is risky business for YouTube. They probably couldn't sell you to enough advertisers, which is why they are now refusing to pay you. For them, it's just profit optimization. And that means explaining things wouldn't help.
Huh? From my understanding, "science" has had the same perspective on this since like forever: it's unfalsifiable either way, but both explanations are at least self-consistent. There's no smoking gun against either side, and so it all depends on your priors.
This excuse really needs to go. It's empty. How a company chooses to make money is an indication of internal culture, and it determines the place the company has in overall society. Every company needs to make money, so what? That doesn't give them carte-blanche in their operations, not even in the US.
I fully support your right to sculpt your body however you choose. The people who are uncomfortable with it should take responsibility for their own feelings instead of blaming you for them.
And you don't need to. Unfortunately people are people - titillation and everything else is in the eye of the beholder - and they will interpret what they see in a way that fits in with their perspective.
There's more, but again, until/if I can explain it more fully, it's on me.
Yes, it's totally ok. What's the problem? For someone from Central Europe, this dicussion seems very bizarre. Go to a random lake in Germany or Austria and you will see women sun bathing topless. I mean, kids literally see boobs from the first day they are born. I am really sick of this puritanical BS!
> it's OK to be half naked in front of kids?"
To me this reads like you are saying that being half naked in front of kids is somehow problematic per se and should be avoided. Maybe this was a misunderstanding.
Either way, I don't really understand why you brought up the "kids" topic in the first place.
Of course it's also the case with men. The dude in a suit will absolutely garner more attention than the one looking like an unwashed hobo. Although some people may rally behind the hobo-look as challenging the norms.
We shouldn't expect them to. There's always going to be blurry boundaries between sexual and non-sexual content, and we should accept this. What we should be critical of is the appearance of selective enforcement - ie. some people are banned and others are not for identical behavior.
I remember on Twitch there's a girl who kept getting banned for wearing the same skimpy clothes that many other female streamers wear, she just had larger breasts that were more attention-grabbing. So the bans seemed superficially unfair, but it was fairly obvious what principle was motivating them.
It is a sad fact that if you took two women on youtube with equal talents and content - the one that "dressed up a little" would be more successful. I don't think that's the case with men (although Colin Furze and Integza do wear ties, maybe that's a factor in their success)
It hard to see how YouTube can defend their actions - her videos are far less titillating than many (most) music videos available (do a youtube video for "female rap video").