Youtube is a free platform to host video content, they themselves need to pay the bills. At a particular point that your videos become "valuable" they offer to provide you with a cut.
The grey area is potentially how they determine the value
Right, but there's a difference between "we don't think this person should be profiting from our platform because they are causing harm" and "we think this person causes harm so we're going to let them use the platform but take the money we would have paid them".
You need to read my comment in response to the person I commented on, not the whole post itself. Their comment was in relation to how Youtube monetizes videos in general, not in relation to Russell and my comment was in relation to monetisation in general, not in relation to Russell.
However, I do agree with your comment. If the videos cause harm them nobody should be profiting from them and realistically they should be taken offline as well.
Youtube is a free platform to host video content, they themselves need to pay the bills. At a particular point that your videos become "valuable" they offer to provide you with a cut.
The grey area is potentially how they determine the value