> The key here is advertisers don't want to be associated with that.

Has this ever been substantiated or verified publicly? Which industry are those and why?

Not that I know of, but I doubt any company will ever want to come out and say "hey btw we don't like revealing images of women associated with our product". It'd be something they request of their ad partners, in this case Google, and I'd imagine it'd be something companies would want to keep under wraps. No need to expose themselves to unneeded controversy.

But we do know that many companies do feel that way, which is why many companies try to create a "family friendly" image. And as Google has said themselves, why many don't want to be associated with "non family friendly" images

It's by far the most parsimonious explanation when anything halfway popular gets "demonetized". YT is a profit-seeking business, they're always going to work closely with advertisers. Content makers and users are secondary, almost nobody is paying for YouTube Red.

> ..almost nobody is paying for YouTube Red

Well, I'd say it's a bit more than "almost nobody" [1], even if you discount trialers.

[1] https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/50-million/

>The key here is advertisers don't want to be associated with that.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/social_issues-july-dec13...

Advertising itself is that. Sex sells, or at least everyone believes sex sells.

That doesn't mean that advertisers aren't allowed to try to create a family friendly appearance? They're still a private entity they can do what they want even if it makes no sense to others