I don't really get why it has to be 'demonetised' anyway, I suppose that's $Company's prerogative, but the 'here's someone else wearing the same top' tweet is a pretty weak argument - if you know that's the issue, then... yes, one person is wearing a top that covers their (yes, smaller) chest, and the other isn't?
I don't think that's 'punishing topography', that's punishing the choice of clothes to suit it (or not). If the person on the right were wearing something similarly revealing, so they only difference was 'less to reveal', sure.
Again, not commenting on whether that's 'right' or not. I just don't think that's a valid defence if she (thinks she) knows that's what the problem is. It's like wearing a children's long-sleeve shirt somewhere that requires covered arms, and saying 'What? You're just punishing my long arms!'.
It is not demonitized it get limited advertisement because of nudity and that is the problem, there is no nudity on her video. Her video is now in adult with nudity content and most big spending advertisers don't advertise on those class of videos.
I don't think that's 'punishing topography', that's punishing the choice of clothes to suit it (or not). If the person on the right were wearing something similarly revealing, so they only difference was 'less to reveal', sure.
Again, not commenting on whether that's 'right' or not. I just don't think that's a valid defence if she (thinks she) knows that's what the problem is. It's like wearing a children's long-sleeve shirt somewhere that requires covered arms, and saying 'What? You're just punishing my long arms!'.