Given how vague their "eligibility criteria" are and how they consider on- and off-platform behavior, I'm not sure that's such a great loss.
The whole thing reads like institutionalized selective enforcement.
The whole thing reads like institutionalized selective enforcement.
The State forced their hands here. Comply and let certain favored creators back, or else they might find themselves subject to political prosecution.
AP News chooses to still call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico; a different choice from the outlets that no longer do. The New York Times, NBC News, the Hill and CNN chose to rather have their Pentagon access revoked; a different choice than the one made by New York Post, One America News Network, Breitbart News Network, HuffPost News and others.
It's important to keep repeating this. Companies, organizations and individuals all have choices. Not every one of them makes the same choice given the same situation - in fact, they make opposite choices.
As far as how this YouTube scenario is different, people can host their content elsewhere, but there's only one Pentagon in the US.
In less strange times this would merit the hammer coming down, but in 2025...