The YouTube Monetization Update: Is it the End for AI-Generated Content

Apparently, everybody is terrified about YouTube's imminent monetization update. Many fear it's going to spell the end for YouTube automation, faceless channels, and AI "slop". But let's find out, shall we?

The Update and the Initial Panic

YouTube has always required creators to upload original and authentic content to monetize as part of the YouTube Partner Program. The specific date everyone is talking about is July 15, 2025, when YouTube is updating its guidelines to better identify mass-produced and repetitious content. This update, they say, better reflects what inauthentic content looks like today.

It's interesting that YouTube is teasing an update so far in advance, leading to widespread "doom and gloom" even though nothing concrete has really been said. It’s possible YouTube wanted to gauge the public response to their vague outline and adjust the specifics accordingly. However, in my opinion, there isn't that much to be worried about until July 15th, especially if you have already been following YouTube's policies and guidelines. This is simply an update to an already detailed and comprehensive set of rules around what content is monetizable on YouTube that has been developed over more than a decade. These rules already discuss authentic content and mass production, so if you read the monetization policies when you joined the YouTube Partner Program, none of this should come as a shock to you.

YouTube's Clarification: "Minor Update," Same Rules

There has been a little bit of clarification from YouTube since they announced the update. When a news outlet tweeted that YouTube was cracking down on unoriginal content with major monetization changes, YouTube was keen to clarify, stating: "To clarify, this is a minor update to our long-standing YPP policies to help us better identify when content is mass-produced or repetitive. This type of content has already been ineligible for monetization for years and is content viewers often consider spam".

The AI Elephant in the Room: A Shifting Definition of "Mass-Produced"

The core of the discussion revolves around YouTube updating guidelines "to better identify mass-produced and repetitious content". A year or two ago, this might have brought to mind reaction channels or channels that re-upload other people's short blog posts. However, in the era of AI, one can't help but think of a "more mass-produced way to make content than typing in a prompt and getting a blog post out of it and doing that 20 times a day and flooding a YouTube channel full of just shorts that you made in one afternoon".

YouTube has always had a rule against mass-produced content being eligible for monetization. Yet, paradoxically, they are releasing a tool really soon that's going to allow creators to use YouTube's own tools to create AI shorts.

The current YouTube monetization policies exist in a "pre-AI prompt generation world". The existing examples in the policies, such as changing the pitch of a song or slideshows with scrolling text, feel outdated. Now, you can "generate entire bands and unlimited albums in minutes" or imagine automated AI prompts creating hundreds, even thousands, of blog posts.

In short, the wording of the monetization policies are no longer fit for purpose, so YouTube needs to update them. This doesn't necessarily mean new and radical changes, but rather "more modern language to fit the new creative environment that we all find ourselves in".

The Gray Area: Monetization, Transformation, and YouTube's Agenda

A significant question arises: if Google is making tools like V3 (which can add sound and human voices to AI-generated content) and it's coming to YouTube, can blog posts created with these tools be monetized, or do they count as mass-produced or repetitious?

It's possible YouTube simply wants "more content on the shorts feed" (or more blog posts). "The more content there is, the more chances there are for you to get addicted to watching it and scrolling forever". YouTube might not be concerned if these blog posts can't be monetized for the creator's benefit, as long as they are there. Some creators might not mind, enjoying the subscriber growth and seeing numbers go up from mass-producing AI shorts.

However, YouTube's CEO has stated in their "big bets for 2025" that they "will continue to invest in AI tools that empower creators and artists throughout their creative journeys". And "that journey means getting paid", otherwise, it's "creative slavery".

The problem for YouTube has always been its definition of inauthentic content, mass-produced content, and where that threshold lies. For example, AI-generated "Stormtrooper vlogs" might not be "nailed" by this monetization update if they are transformative. The question of whether they survive the "enormous copyright infringement debate" is a separate matter. If a channel can be created in a month with AI tools what would have taken years and extreme expense before, does that mean it's mass-produced? "Bit of a gray area, that one, isn't it?".

The Sliding Scale of Originality

At the two extreme ends of this monetization policy, there is original and unoriginal content, and most creators sit somewhere on this line. The "vast majority of creators" will "fall well within the boundaries of the original content made by you", perhaps with AI tools to assist, and have "nothing for you to be concerned about".

Before the AI revolution, just a few years ago, compilations, montages, and reaction blog posts potentially pulled towards a lack of transformation, automation, and unoriginal content. This is a "sliding scale" depending on how much each creator relies on these components. Some of that content "will fall on the wrong side of YouTube's threshold, meaning demonetization".

Therefore, this update is likely about "simply adding new definitions to the monetization threshold". YouTube now needs to consider "how original an AI prompted blog post is", whether "the AI prompt was completely automated or created by a human", and the "variety of content created from one blog post to the next".

The Ambiguity by Design: Why Policies Are Vague

It's important to appreciate that until the official update to the policy is released, we're all just speculating. As is often the case with YouTube policy updates, they seem "lightly worded so that YouTube can enforce them at their discretion". The more examples and details they provide, the harder it is to enforce these types of rules. It's almost as if YouTube itself might not entirely know what they mean, operating on a "we'll know it when we see it" basis.

While frustrating for creators who want clear examples, from a business perspective, it makes sense. The more precise language YouTube uses, the more it's "pinned into a corner". YouTube needs flexibility when making decisions on the "20 million blog posts that are uploaded every single day" (or 500 million a month). To cover all these unique pieces of content in detail in a monetization policy would require an incredibly long document.

What This Means for You (and the 15,000 Others)

Even if this monetization update seems big, it would be surprising if it affects even "half a percent of creators on the platform". While this might sound like a good result, consider the enormous scale of YouTube. There are over 3 million creators in the YouTube Partner Program. So, "half a percent of them would represent 15,000 creators". If these 15,000 creators get demonetized, "you're going to hear about it".

The best advice right now is to check out the YouTube monetization policy support page and thoroughly read the reuse and repetitious content sections. "80 to 90% of what you need to know is already there".

Then, on July 15th, we can all see what happens. Hopefully, it's not the start of "Ad Apocalypse 3" (or is it four? I've lost count).