>instead of them having to advertise for dubious VPN services.

Do you think Youtube wants creators to do that? Youtube doesn't get a cut of that revenue, whereas Youtube does get a cut of regular Youtube ad revenue and Premium revenue.

Disclosure: I work at Google but not on Youtube, and am just speculating here.

> Do you think Youtube wants creators to do that?

Perhaps Google should think upon how things ended up this way then?

Like, there are some pretty clear problems with Google's approach to (at least) YouTube, and they don't seem to really want to fix them...

It wound up this way because Youtubers want more money than AdSense and Premium can give them. They earn a lot more from sponsorships than AdSense and Premium.

Are you suggesting that Youtube squeeze out more money per view than it's currently doing? How do you suggest doing this? I guess one way would be to block people from using adblockers...

Are you suggesting that Youtube is trustworthy, and creators shouldn't diversify their income sources?

I'm not saying creators shouldn't diversity their income streams. My first comment in this chain was pointing out that Youtube isn't urging creators to embed sponsorships, which copperx seemed to think Youtube was doing.

Youtube is widely known to demonetise videos and outright kill established channels based upon spurious inputs / phase of moon / etc. The recent Russell Brand stuff easily springs to mind, as does abuse of the Content ID three strikes policy by bad actors.

If the creators need their income to be resilient to demonetisation, they're forced to use options outside the Youtube system. Sponsorships, etc.

YouTube has actually started to do that with YouTube Premium referral program, but it is open right now to just very few YouTubers (FireShip being one of them).