Amongst YouTubers and content creators there has been discussion off and on over the demonetization decisions made by Alphabet over YouTube. Content creators and their fans are claiming censorship when videos are not promoted with paid advertising or get banned over questionable assertions over intellectual property and trademarks.

The creator does not get compensated for their work in scripting, recording, and editing their videos including any animation or prop costs. Then users cannot see the content they intended to watch and the furthermore the creator may discontinue making similar content because there is no point to manufacture such content because there is no expectation that they will be paid by supplying it to the platform. This has led to a situation where some creators have quit the platform or only use YouTube as a promotional hub to promote efforts on other platforms such as Twitch, Mixer, Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest, or their own website.

First, this is not direct and explicit censorship. When looking up the definition of censorship, the description reads that censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. In this case, the content creator can still create content unless the content specifically violates terms of service by falling into prohibited categories such as promoting hate, encouraging violence, showing sex, or infringing on intellectual property. Then the content will either be banned or the creator’s account will be temporarily suspended or canceled permanently.

All of this is at YouTube’s discretion, but if the content is compliant the creator can still use the platform to disseminate messages promoting an agenda, content created for entertainment, etc. This means the creator can still produce original content and showcase it while users can still enjoy watching or listening. What is not clear in the discussion is whether or not demonetization is actual suppression. When looking up the definition of suppression it reads an action of suppressing something such as an activity or publication. Under the synonyms, there is the word crackdown which is severe measures to restrict or discourage undesirable or illegal people or behavior. If demonetization were to meet the standard of severe measures to restrict or discourage then this may in fact be a crackdown. However, the definition does not guarantee the right to be paid for one’s opinions. Then there is copyright law and other laws protecting intellectual property. So the debate does get murky when you debate over definitions, synonyms, and context.