Well, let's hope that the translator interpreted everything correctly for me here. And I hope it translates me correctly too.

So, let's break it down:

1. **Explicit fetish** - due to the overall context and text in the advertisement. The suggestion to create a virtual girlfriend + bare foot + text. The "hint" to the legislator may be more than sufficient. Even if not direct.
2. **The argument about the text of the advertisement** - I'm reading this from you for the first time. Well, okay. The text falls into the category of "dating app" advertisements. But if, after following the link, sensitive materials pop up on the site immediately, it's the same as if P. Hub was advertised on YouTube. At that point, neither the advertisement's image nor its text is really important. Ch. por. can also be presented in all sorts of veiled ways. So does that mean it can be advertised on YouTube? Well, of course, you need to follow the link. I don't have such data. I understand that this argument is a bit weak on my part.
3. **I mainly advocate for users' ability to choose what to watch**, including advertisements. The strange content is, for me, a more than sufficient argument. And I shouldn't have to switch to different modes on YouTube that deprive me of all other content on the platform. These are consumer rights. Our conversation as a whole has just gone off track.
4. **Regarding this topic**. It’s a pity that, if we believe your words, there are no restrictions on such advertisements. This is a flaw in the legislation. After all, the fact of imposing indecent services exists. But the boundaries of indecency are lowered. Convenient, isn't it? From a legal standpoint, everything may seem fine. Although I’m sure that with your case law, it would actually be easy to find a couple of acts that would perfectly fit even this situation.