Before her entire channel was demonetized, youtube was deleting a few videos, demonetizing some and then leaving many alone. Her channel is still up even though youtube has deleted a handful of vids.
I read through that article about the Eugenia-inspired lawsuit someone linked earlier in the thread, and I think youtube's response to this is the difference between deletion vs demonetization. From
the recent article:
viewers questioned whether the platform had adequate safeguards for creators whose health issues become visible online. Plaintiffs argue that internal communications from that time could show what TikTok knew about potential harm to users or whether it took any action in response.
...accuse Meta, TikTok, YouTube, and Snapchat of designing their platforms to encourage compulsive use among minors. Plaintiffs, including parents, school districts, and young users, claim that features like infinite scrolling, push notifications, and personalized recommendations are intentionally designed to maintain user engagement for extended periods. This practice, they assert, has adverse effects on mental health, leading to conditions such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.
By framing these social media platforms as consumer products, the plaintiffs argue the companies are legally responsible for foreseeable harm caused by their design choices and their failure to warn users about those risks. This argument follows product liability law, which holds manufacturers accountable for unsafe designs or inadequate safety warnings. Plaintiffs say the addictive nature of these digital products functions like a design defect and claim internal research shows the companies were aware of potential harms but prioritized growth and profit instead.
I added the bold for emphasis.
Advertisers don't want to place ads on overly controversial content, and only a few want to be on age restricted content. That's always been the case, but youtube has recently tightened the guidelines. This is why some videos get demonetized but aren't deleted for TOS.
But Amber's channel is still up (as of now) because most of her content is non-monetizable without being egregious enough to get banned on the platform. That could change based on TOS updates, or even if youtube finds it more convenient to ban her instead of picking through 1000 videos.
Youtube trying to pick through videos to give "adequate safety warnings" to viewers with eating disorders is going to be difficult. Videos are being pushed to these users by the algorithm and notifications on her channel, as the lawsuit points out.
If I were youtube lawyers, I'd advise deleting her entire channel in case they've missed content that promotes binge eating or "fasting" (which would be interpreted as starving to an anorexic) as a part of an eating disorder. Amberlynn talking about gaining 200 lbs, losing 89, gaining again because of the "binge monster", then standing on a scale for the audience? That sounds like lawsuit bait to me.
Chantal would have the same problem if youtube really dug into her channel. She's also violating the updated TOS about promoting bad medical advice related to food. Talk about violating consumer safety laws and regulations!
Chantal has multiple videos telling her audience Unicity fiber drink is treating her diabetes. Then she offered them discounts and a website link to buy it.
Chins also has mukbang videos labeled as "treating type 2 diabetes" with various meals. She's even got one about treating her liver problems with some dumb food plan she made up. I can't remember if Amber did anything like that between her and Becky's problems?