YouTube CEO Neal Mohan on AI, Censorship & the Future of Creators

Is YouTube still the town square—or a marketplace for creators?

Imagine a platform that pays out tens of billions, hosts live World Cup-like water cooler moments, and now faces an AI tidal wave. That contradiction is what made the conversation on stage feel electric. Neil Mohan, YouTube's CEO, kept returning to a single idea: scale creates opportunity, and opportunity creates responsibility.

Numbers that silence skeptics

Start with the math. Shorts is gargantuan—tens of billions of daily views—and YouTube has funneled more than $70 billion to creators over recent years. Those figures land like proof points. They also change the tone of the argument about whether platforms are simply middlemen or full partners. I found myself nodding when Mohan described YouTube as an entrepreneurial engine: creators bet on themselves, and as audiences grow so does real income.

The tricky bargain: 55-45 and who it helps

The revenue split—famous to anyone making ad-supported content—remains a flashpoint. On stage, critique landed bluntly. Big creators sometimes opt out of platform monetization because they can package ads themselves. Mohan didn't invent a new split, but he reframed the debate. The platform, he argued, must offer a buffet of monetization tools and let creators pick the ones that match their business goals. I appreciated that answer because it shifts the conversation from a single take-rate grievance to a broader product-design question.

Ad quality, engagement, and the secret sauce

Advertisers keep coming because audiences on YouTube are, as Mohan put it, "leaned in." That matters. High engagement translates into measurable ROI for brands, which in turn funds the creator economy. I felt the logic: if ads are more valuable because viewers are more engaged, then a platform cut buys more than just distribution. It buys an engine that turns attention into revenue.

Can algorithmic personalization and national culture coexist?

There was a surprising, thoughtful passage about fragmentation. Yes, your YouTube feed looks like you. But Mohan pushed back against the doom loop narrative: niche aggregation often begets global trends. He cited live sports—recently streamed matches that felt appointment viewing—as proof that YouTube can still generate shared cultural moments. That struck me as an honest admission. The feed fragments; live events glue us back together.

Content moderation: a moving target

On censorship, Mohan was candid and a bit weary. The COVID era, he said, forced rapid decisions amid chaos. Some policies followed an extraordinary moment; others were defensive reactions. Today, he favors flexible, principle-driven rules anchored by a North Star: give everyone a voice and show them the world. Still, the platform must navigate a thicket of local laws and cultural norms. His description of teams balancing global principles and regional regulations felt like a behind-the-scenes glimpse at an enormous, imperfect machine.

Which creators earn and why some don't

The room pushed on demonetization—firearms and poker creators, for example, have grievances. Mohan's reply blended nuance and pragmatism: some categories are governed by legal frameworks, safety concerns, and suitability for younger audiences. I respected the attempt to move beyond a headline argument. The reality is granular; some content finds monetization, some doesn't, and the decisions often sit at the intersection of law, safety, and advertiser comfort.

Products that matter: TV, Premium, and subscriptions

Product strategy came alive during the exchange about YouTube TV, Premium, and subscription tools. YouTube TV is a sports-and-news play with fan-first features like multi-view. Premium, at roughly 125 million subscribers, is a hybrid—many users are consuming music without ads. And the subscription features that let creators build direct relationships feel like a slow-burning Patreon within the platform. Together, these products expand creator options and reduce single-point reliance on ad revenue.

AI: promise, peril, and the need for a Content ID 2.0

The most futurist part of the discussion landed on AI. Mohan acknowledged the spectrum between AI-assisted and fully synthetic content, and he announced labeling efforts—#AIGenerated badges—and experiments with "likeness detection." That phrase stuck with me. Treating AI-generated representations of real creators the way Content ID treats copyrighted material is a pragmatic route. It recognizes creators' rights to their voice and face while admitting technology will complicate authorship.

What felt unresolved

Three tensions lingered as the conversation wrapped: the philosophical line between free expression and platform safety, the creator calculus between net revenue and control, and the speed at which AI disrupts authenticity. Mohan offered frameworks and tools, not definitive answers. That felt appropriate. Platforms rarely solve these problems in a single quarterly plan.

What I took away

• Scale delivers both security and ethical complexity. Two billion users make decisions consequential.
• Monetization is diversifying. Ads still fund most payouts, but subscriptions and direct relationships matter.
• AI forces a rights-first response. Likeness detection feels like Content ID's heir.

Watching Mohan balance proud metrics with policy ambivalence left me oddly reassured. CEOs often offer platitudes; he offered a roadmap. It was frank about trade-offs and noisy about possibility. If there is a single through-line, it is this: platforms must keep inventing tools that match creators' ambitions while defending the fragile civic spaces those creators occupy.

• Actionable insights:
• Offer creators multiple monetization paths; let their business objectives dictate choices.
• Prioritize ad quality and engagement to sustain high payouts for creators.
• Label AI-generated content clearly and develop likeness detection systems like Content ID.
• Balance global free-speech principles with local legal responsibilities through transparent policies.

There was no neat resolution. But I walked away thinking platforms and creators are still improvising a contract that will define cultural life for years. That uneasy, hopeful experiment is still worth watching.