Shouldn't his status as a criminal be decided by a court of law first?

I guess "criminal activity" may have been the wrong phrase. "Illegal activity" is more what I meant. Because not all illegal activity is adjudicated by a court, and a regulatory action by the FAA is one of those things.

It's pretty obvious, but I guess we could suspend his pay and if he ends up being guilty youtube can donate the proceeds.

There may be no meaningful legal sanction for this.

Many jurisdictions have ways to seize profits of crime, and just about all have ways to punish crime including paying fines and restitution.

Don't you think it would be better to go through a system which has (at least a semblance of) due process, fairness, and transparency about the rules? Yes yes I know I know, "they're a private company they can do what they want". I'm not wondering what they can do, more flabbergasted about the apparent sudden and large support for corporations acting to censor and punish people like this.

But he isn't convicted yet...

The solution would be for a court to take that money away at the same time as convicting him. And I think many courts would do exactly that.

Agreed. YouTube is profiting from his malfeasance.

Otherwise, it's just malfeasance for malfeasance's sake.

> there’s a moral issue with what is essentially monetizing criminal activity

Then it should be in their terms of service. In fact it probably is…

Shadowbanning is another option.