First of all... this is not " a simple,quick, post". ;cP

Throughout the read I couldn't help but revisit my struggles with the question over how much moderation is actually good and not repressive.

The answer that I came to may be summarized as follows:

• Where the message is not blunted: In my view it is OK for a host to require sanitary anti-profanity standards - for as long as its stated up-front. Ideally with an age-filtered channel via which profanity is permitted. The same applies to explicit content.

• Where threats are highlighted as such. I do not believe in 'censoring' threats. They happened and should be taken seriously and one way to do so is to highlight them as such. That being said, there are threats and there are 'threats'.
  Through such a highlighting system one would expect peer pressure to serve as first-line correction - perhaps in conjunction with action from authorities if applicable.

These are my initial thoughts on the matter. One thing that I can comment upon at tangent is that in the business of gaining a following it is the wishes of the clients and not the advertisers that should determine what can or cannot be monetized. Of course I also understand most advertisers balking at having their product associated with explicit content or profanities or the like.

For other kinds of content of variable degrees of agreeableness - perhaps advertisers should be able to opt into adding a standard 5-10 second disclaimer - available from Youtube's side.

In this way we'll know that KFC's advert doesn't endorse the Youtube review of what goes into McD's patties, etc.