[Yes, that's a long title, above, but it draws attention to the incongruous contrast between the current phase of negotiations and the one immediately prior: youtube employees have completely ceased to suggest that I am guilty of "promoting or glorifying" violence. That claim narrowed down the dangerously vague allegation of "hate speech" into something that I should be able to defend myself against —and so, just as suddenly as the allegation was introduced, it has now disappeared from discussions.]
Hi there, [Sept. 27th, 2025, circa 6:00 PM]
I hope all is well.
Thanks for reaching back.
I truly understand how deeply you must be feeling right now, and I want to acknowledge the immense importance of understanding the precise reasons behind the decision. It's not just a matter of curiosity; it's a fundamental human needs to understand why something significant has happened, especially when it impacts your creative work and livelihood. It's completely natural to seek closure, to want to piece together the events and gain a sense of resolution. Believe me, I genuinely wish I could provide you with that sense of closure.
Unfortunately, I find myself in a position where our established policies restrict me from divulging the detailed information you're seeking. This isn't a decision made lightly, but rather a necessary measure to uphold the security and fairness of our review processes. We've implemented these policies to protect the integrity of our systems and ensure that all creators are treated equitably. I realize that this explanation might sound impersonal, but it's crucial to understand the broader context.
Still, kindly know that you are still more than welcome to check out our Community Guidelines resources.
If you have any additional concerns, please feel free to reach out.
Best,
Ark
—————
Hi Eisel, [Sept. 27th, 2025, 7:49 PM]
Thanks for reaching out.
This is Jon, a manager from the YouTube support experience team.
I understand you are facing a series of "Hate Speech" violations which you are convinced are being applied in bad faith, not as a genuine enforcement of policy.
I recognize that your core issue is with the integrity of the review process itself. You are citing the lack of specific evidence from YouTube and the near-instantaneous rejection of your appeals as proof of a systemic problem, which you believe constitutes employee misconduct. Let me assist you here.
To avoid confusion with the resolution and duplication of work for this video, please refer to this case: [4-4615000039678] YouTube Support for resolution.
To ensure fairness and consistency, our review process is thorough, therefore, submitting additional appeals or contacting us repeatedly will not change the outcome of the decision we have reached.
While I recognize this isn't the outcome you wanted, I want to assure you that my support team has dedicated significant effort to investigating your situation, utilizing all available resources and reviewing every detail. Regrettably, even after this thorough process, we are unable to provide a different resolution or share any further information beyond what has already been communicated.
I hope this clears things out. Your understanding and cooperation will be highly appreciated!
Regards,
Jon
—————
So if I upload the same video again ("I am too ugly to lead the vegan movement") what would I need to delete from it, to avoid having the video censored (again) as hate speech?
There must be a specific moment in that video (and in each of the videos) justifying your claim that they promote (or glorify) violence: it must be possible for me to remove the portion of the video you've identified as hate speech, to then upload it again.
I would also point out, not hypothetically, exactly the same videos have been uploaded again (already) without anyone at YouTube perceiving the same statements as hate speech (or as promoting and glorifying violence, in particular).
Either you are telling the truth, or you are lying: either it is true that each of these videos actually contain hate speech (e.g., the parody song "Monk Mode", e.g. the video about the declining popularity of the vegan movement aforementioned) or else they do not.
This is a very simple, binary question.
You know you are lying: you know you are part of the world's most laughable "cover up" in claiming these videos promote and glorify violence (against a racial minority that is never specified, but always remains vague, I note) when the videos contain nothing of the kind —very clearly nothing of the kind at the time stamp provided (e.g. a chart showing declining interest in veganism, being discussed from a pro-vegan perspective, I might add).
I will repeat here, for your convenience, the list of videos that have been deleted under false pretenses: not a single one of these videos contains hate speech: the decision to delete these videos should be overturned.
HOWEVER, if these videos WILL NOT be reinstated ("unbanned") then please provide me with guidance as to what should be censored out when I reupload them (as I already have done, in many cases, without being censored again).
Sept. 25th, 2025
https://youtu.be/ZlHEEbYyzaQ
MONK MODE! @Hamza97
Sept 24th, 2025
https://youtu.be/xdEhTXBU_KI
I'm still too ugly to lead the vegan movement.
Sept 24th, 2025
https://youtube.com/live/82zFz7lx7Oo
Stop saying, "dating is a numbers game". #blackpill #incels
Sept 24th, 2025
https://youtu.be/oDmp7KyD71I
Blackpilled Incels: Refugees from the Toxic Optimism of Christianity
Oct 1st, 2024
https://youtu.be/6g8Yn0wnsKE
Genetically inferior, morally inferior, intellectually inferior.
September 30th, 2024
https://youtu.be/YEp8rbvbzpg
The Last PUA in Japan: Tkyosam's Deleted Videos.
September 27th, 2024
https://youtu.be/F0pac_Y9ItE
She is not an Anastasia: Hamza Ahmed's new girlfriend is a Jessica.
E.M.
