They could have done it quietly, but with the multiple articles/blog posts about this and the .... how should I put it ... concerned netizens ... from reddit flagging channels and videos left, right and centre, Yt was probably under extreme corporate pressure from Alphabet to cut content. There was likely not enough time to go channel by channel and video by video - just slash anything remotely not 2 y.o. kids safe. Of course this caused even more news, and now advertisers are pulling out again.
If I was an investor, and I'm not, I would certainly demand the head of the VP for Kids, probably even the CEO. Add 3 more execs, probably corporate oversight, advertising and 1 more, and we could make a Daddy Finger video with their heads bopping around on a glove.[DOUBLEPOST=1511559425,1511559002][/DOUBLEPOST]
From watching that AIR interview with the Russian Yt reps, my understanding is it's based on the perceived "badness" of the transgressions. If channels transgressed very badly or were leading the trends, the channels were terminated (TF, Vlad) They had both unacceptable content inside the video and a very large number of videos transgressing.
If we transgressed not too badly without clear intent, we are demonetized. So the stuff in the video was not kid safe, but not extremely not kids safe. And we were not doing it with malicious intent, as it seems everyone is saying TF did.
If channels transgressed only a little bit (not the # of videos nor the % of channel content, but the content of the videos themselves) then the videos were removed either by Yt or the channel themselves but they are still monetizable. Best example of this I can think of is "bad baby crying for lollipops". Not too good, but not that serious, not as serious as kids getting crushed or crushing food.
That's my understanding of it. Welcome any elaboration from anyone who has learned more during the day from AIR or otherwise....