Unfortunately for them, these rules are absolutely insane for a site like theirs. I mean, look at them: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en-GB For example, this one is nuts: Why? Well, look at it this way. How many big YouTube channels have tons of swearing? Oh wait, pretty much every caustic critic one on the site. This is basically saying Angry Video Game Nerd, Channel Awesome, the Yogscast, Angry Show and Pewdiepie can't monetise their videos. That's basically saying their biggest channel ever (47 million subscribers) might not to be able to make money on YouTube. The other channels mentioned have 678,000 (Channel Awesome), 2.4 million (Angry Video Game Nerd/Cinemassacre), 7.3 million (Yogscast) and 2.6 million (Angry Joe Show) respectively. So yeah, right off the bat, their rules basically alienate every big content provider on the site. That's not good, especially if they start thinking about their own YouTube alternative... This sounds logical, although there are definite worries that it could apply to video games and media as well as real life events. Which would basically say 'no monetising Call of Duty videos'. So... no monetising news channels then. I'm sure the likes of the BBC are going to be really happy with this one! And political conflicts, really? Oh, okay. Thanks for basically saying anything about Trump and the US election, anything about the recent Brexit, anything about the goings on in the middle east and anything about recent US stuff like police shootings and black lives matter is unmonetisable. That's really going to make the platform great for 'journalism' in the future! I think this sums it up quite well: But what do you think? Do these rules show a company that completely misses the point of what their site is about? What sort of effect would this have on YouTube if they try enforcing these guidelines?