So companies should be forced to pay for content they don't want to be associated with? There's PBS for that.
You tube doesn't remove those videos, strangulating is a rather big word to use here.

I searched it up, and apparently it is.

You looked it up, or searched for it on Google, to be pedantic.

So is sesquipedalian.

My reason was: they don't. If no one watches their content because it's shit/poorly advertised/still under construction they don't recieve any revenue. Even a viewership of thousands gives you mere pennys on youtube. They get payed per view. I don't know how much clearer I can state that. So their income is directly tied to their ability to create content tht is in demand, much more so than a lot of other professions actually. They already don't have a special privilige and they don't deserve years of hard work taken away from them just like no one expects you to do your job for free all of a sudden.

You act as if this wasn't a system of monetization that has established itself over years and is accepted and relied on.

If you were a train conductor and the company you work for suddenly tells you that from now on they will stop paying you (with money they generated by tcket sales-->youtubered, ad-revenue from designated advertisement space within the trains ---> ad revenue, and by pursuing deals with busieness partners as well as state subvention) but expects you to keep doing your job, you'd probably be pretty appaled. If then someone comes along and tells you: 'Well apparently you're just not a good enough train conductor if people don't individually tip you enough for you to survive! Just persue it as a hobby from now on!' You'd probably think they were crazy because they're completely ignoring every expectation the prior system has set up. No. People aren't randomly going to start tipping you for being on time, because they never had to before. That does not mean you're not valuabe or bad at your job.

I should probably also mention that I don't really care about any of the 'poliical channels' in OP, but this is affecting a lot of non political as well channels right now and we will see what youtube turns into once their reconstruction is complete.

Well the reality is the traditional media looks at Youtube with disdain, but even with all the crap I find a lot of high quality informative videos that have made me learn about the world.

So is the big mainstream media has stooped so low to fight the dasterdly "fake" news and "alternative" media? Does this mean the likes of The Young Turks will be on say CNN, Sargon of Akkad on FOX, and Phillip DeFranco on MSNBC if they want to make any form of money off of their opinions and not being politically neutral? This is looks like the beginning of the inevitable YouTube "purge" where little by little more and more "controversial" topics joins the list of content demonetization.

Advertisers have always been free to pull advertising content from broadcasts to which they object. It's one of the levers companies have for trying to influence broadcasting.

I remember a lot of people here being all in favour of Intel pulling advertising from Gamasutra because of a gamergate article. I have no interest in reopening the gamergate topic, but this situation is no different in principle to that one. Someone produces a video or article that is controversial, companies withdraw their advertising.

Google is making it one step removed by being the advertiser rather than the product seller who withdraws advertising. They are making a decision on behalf of the product seller (all product sellers), but they I would be highly surprised if they are doing that without at least the tacit consent of the companies involved. So the answer is, boycott the companies who have agreed to this policy and make it known, through social media, that this is the reason you are boycotting.

Fortunately for Youtube content creators Google can't actually prevent these people from continuing to upload their videos, they can only remove direct monetisation. Also fortunately for Youtube content creators they have things like patreon which can be used as a source of income that is not dependant on Youtube advertising.

And finally, this could backfire badly on Google. Given we all actually find the ads on Youtube to be annoying and intrusive, people are going to tend to gravitate to channels that have no advertising because Google has demonetised those channels as being too controversial. Which thus makes those so-called controversial channels even more popular.

There is a smart solution of course. When I sign up to news feeds I get to choose what subjects I want to receive as notifications. Surely companies advertising through Google can tick the boxes of the types of subjects or key words with which they don't want to be associated through advertising content. That way there is no need for Google to take a sledgehammer to all "controversial" content and deny all monetisation.

If I'm a conservative pro-lifer I may not want to advertise my products on channels that promote a pro-choice agenda, and I will probably want to advertise on a channel that promotes a pro-life agenda. And If I am a liberal pro-choicer I will probably want to do the opposite. Can't Google cater to both?

Fair Enough.

The way I see it, youtube in many cases is their direct employer and they get payed by view, although that probably also doesn't apply to networks like Maker.

Especially since they don't have alternative income streams like merch/ticket-/album-/DVD-/artsales etc. unless they are very big.

The system created by Youtube fosters an expectation of free content though, that a lot of creators wont be able to fullfill anymore either way, so stuff is going to have to change for them and not all changes are going to be positive. They are going to have to diversify and like you said, secure individual sponsorships and I think some smaller channels are going to fall by the wayside because of this.

And I even like the idea of more targeted adverts by advertisers that support the content, but on the flipside I worry about how the content is going to have to change in order to appease advertisers. The thread is about political channels, but what about cursing? Are we about to get an avalanche of bleeps on youtube in order to get te content to be more advertiser friendly? What about political jokes? So far this new policy is all vague broad strokes and no finetuning, with very little help offered to content creators. And seeing how skewerd towards companies the content ID system is, I don't really have much faith in Youtube to not skrew this up. We'll see, though.

I remember a time when nobody at YouTube got paid and no one complained. Nowadays every little channel with 100 subs demands some form of income. I'm getting sick of it. In fact, I'm too sick of it to even read about these new YouTube policies in detail, so I won't say anything about it.