No, but in this case it's probably certain that if he wasn't going to make a YouTube video he wouldn't have done the illegal act. It's probably something that most companies and advertisers, wouldn't want to be associated with incase they were seen to be endorsing and encouraging the act.

Pretty sure profiting from illegal activity is.

That's a good argument for demonetization, sure, but the person I was replying to was advocating for more than just demonetization.

A privately owned platform can (should?) apply higher standards than 'is it illegal' when moderating UGC.

Since the service is 'free' and no money changes hands it's not as if they have to refund banned user etc.