YouTube is trying to illegally shutdown my Anime and Gaming Commentary Channel (YouTube: Racism, Favortism, Bigotry and Discrimination)

SparagusParty

SparagusParty

‎
#1
#1
I've been trying to get a small Anime and Gaming Commentary channel up and running, and I have been shadow-banned by YouTube's "Trust and Safety team" on a basis of their senseless prejudice against my personal religious views.

For anyone interested, you can hear the whole story here:

Frankly, this treatment is appalling. It's not like I've been some stiff-necked hyper-judgmental evangelical nutcase for example. I've barely said anything apart from the bare necessities of communication to establish an open friendship and relationship with my viewers and subscribers - I highly value them, so I practice openness and accountability and share everything with them. None of those people seemed to have a problem with my content - As far as I can tell my viewers and subscribers loved what I was doing. Only these YouTube moderators seem to have an issue.

If anyone wants to help, hearing the story and sharing the video to increase exposure on this helps. Now I'm frustrated. This is my Anime and Gaming Commentary channel, and I am now forced by YouTube to produce videos of a "political content" to explain and address what they are doing. I don't even like making videos like that in this channel.

For anyone who wants to check out my channel you can find it here:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzXev9EvQ2HpKTXBn-MUKlg

Or follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ErikMacrae

I'm really upset about this. The time I was going to dedicate to some more Tree of Savior videos as well as a commentary on the latest One Piece spoilers has been delayed now to make 3 videos explaining this situation.


This is not the first time that they have done this. Apart from the many thousands of other small YouTuber accounts that have been shadow banned, they even tried to interfere with the famous YouTuber Coryxkenshin's channel a while ago. He mentioned this in a video called: "YouTube: Racism and Favortism".


I did not even hear about this Hutts guy until recently, I don't know what he did that crossed YouTube but they won't even pay him.

All this is making that team look more and more dubious and scummy.
 
Last edited:
SparagusParty

SparagusParty

‎
#6
#6
Edit: Actually, I am not sure sure that is correct. I will explain the edit below:

I am not convinced that this is a Copyright issue rather than an act of discrimination, to be honest. I will choose to stand my ground on this issue because evidence to conclude otherwise is subpar when the facts are considered.

First and foremost, if this were a Copyright-related visibility restriction, then YouTube failed to make any effort to inform me. And I don't believe that for a second. Take a look at the screenshot.

If visibility had in anyway been restricted, there should have been a prompt or a message or warning. I know this for a fact because I have had videos where the visibility was restricted on account of Copyright claims. If that happens, in that little box there where it says "Copyright Claim" it mentions in detail "The video's visibility has been restricted", explains the situation and provides a direct link even showing which countries the visibility was toggled off for.

I realize that some freaks abuse the claim of having been "cancelled" by the now called "cancel culture", but I am not one of the people to abuse those claims or do so hastily. Again, if my visibility has been restricted on account of a copyright claim, then it is the duty of YouTube to actually leave a note on the videos and inform me so it can be rectified seeing that they do that with everyone else and indeed did that with me before. It is also an impossibility that I had multiple videos like that where they simply left a note "The owner allows the content to be used on YouTube" and in the details section, it says "Channel not affected" and "Visibility: Everyone can see this video".

If YouTube has relayed to me false information conveying to me directly that my visibility was not affected, then they have deceived and lied to me, and that should be exposed - and they are in the wrong, not me.

If YouTube has in fact illegally discriminated against me on a basis of some foolish Darwino-Marxist radical ideology, then they have deceived and lied to others, and that should be exposed - they are in the wrong, not me.

Moreover the great danger in allowing for the default re-route explanation to be "On your part, you failed to do disclaimers properly" is that the types of people who discriminate and "cancel" illegally when they manage platforms as it were are also the same people-type prone to using cover-ups and psychological warfare techniques to hide what they are doing, historically speaking. The data trend clearly shows that I make a video featuring "Christian content" and my visibility suddenly drops then. I did not change the method or format of my videos in any way - so if it was a Copyright based restriction, it should have been already happening and consistent, and it is far too much of a "coincidence" for it to happen at that exact timing, escpecially when so much of the Trust and Safety team has been fairly open in expressing their personal ideology. We are just maybe, short of a body cam sting operation proving the point, if only at that. I don't belive in luck and 1 in 30 million chances, and consequently I don't play lottery. If there is a continual pattern and trend showing with videos and visbility restrictions on YouTube showing semblences of a story they don't like (YouTube illegally discriminating) where the matter is observable, testable, repeatable and consistent- then I am apt to think that it is YouTube who must now "sit on the hot seat" and would not accept a gaslight response.


Honestly, it is that simple. Just to make sure, when moving forward I will probably test the use of disclaimers covering the copyright details, attributions, etc. - and if any of you have recommendations of formats to follow, I will hear them. But in all honesty, I am virtually 99.9% if not 100% sure they will not make smidgen of difference and were never the issue at any point. Also there are two types of Copyright disclaimer- those used in a description as readable text, and those orally pronounced in the video itself. YouTube hasn't been the most clear in expressing what Disclaimers it demands to see. Communication has been weak on their part. (Not mine)

If it has come to a point that oral pronunciations like that are the best format, again you have another problem with YouTube. That problem being that they have been gearing their algorithm's to give preference to "Shorter length videos" - so anyone implementing an orally pronounced Disclaimer, for example crediting Toei and being sure to announce "no ownership" on their part adding maybe another 30 seconds of video content - we are being pressed into a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario". Because we would either be pressed by a Copyright Enforcement system that isn't even perfectly honest or clear when it has an issue (they are not telling you if your visibility is restricted), or still discriminated against at times by an algorithm because the copyright disclaimers in videos made their videos slightly longer, and thus not favored as much by these strange algorithms.

When companies grow to be as large and depended on as YouTube, they cannot afford to tolerate great contradictions in their practices, or to be unreprovable, uncorrectable and not able to hear due criticism and judgment of their manner of handling both material and the systems related thereof.



 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top