re: YouTube demonetizing under secret policies they won't reveal, or that reflect arbitrary and subjective judgment:
That reflects a lot more than Google, and raises the legal isse of "void for vagueness" that fundamentally invalidates laws or contracts, as well as adhesion or coercion contracts, that in theory are fundamentally illegal and void, but are commonly used and upheld every day. There are also legal standards that in cases of grossly unequal parties to such contracts, they're to be interpreted in the manner most favorable to the less equal party.
There may also be issues of criminal fraud, to the extend video content was produced and delivered on the promise of certain revenues and terms for same, and now the monster corp is trying to refuse payments. Google and its ilk are so huge, they scare off government prosecutors who lack resources for a legal battle, but criminal charges could obligate government to fund legal actions that civil process would not.
In effect, subject to figuring out how to enforce law, Google like many others, some far more biased, can demonstrably be shown to be acting in violation of civil and criminal law. But, what parts of it can be enforced, and how?
Of YouTube channels with philosophy content, Pangburn is one that has some serious intellectuals in quality content engagement, unlike so many that have a huge amount of noise and garbage. It could be a 5-10 year project litigating relevant issues, and appeals, with biased courts that often kowtow to corporate scams as if legal norms despite law stating otherwise. That could make it a more desirable party for civil or criminal litigation to challenge major problems in monetization of net users and contracts with terms that are secret or unknowable in advance.
