[Note that the numbers shown for the "watch hours", in the image above, concern a period of 365 days in which my channel was banned (and thus inaccessible to any audience) for the vast majority of the time. So those are just the "watch hours" for a few months prior to the banning, and short period time after the ban was lifted. The discussion that ensues, below, is —of course— concerning whether or not my channel will now be banned again.]
9:48:49 PM https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZMBWEewOamE
9:49:06 PM ^ This is an example of a video that was deleted as "hate speech".
9:49:13 PM Charles: Okay.
9:49:23 PM ^ When I challenged the decision, I was told that the video (specifically) encouraged violence.
9:49:25 PM This is a lie.
9:49:36 PM ^ That "short" (video) in just a few seconds proves that this is a lie.
9:49:41 PM Specific employees within youtube are corrupt:
9:49:58 PM there are specific youtube employees who are not following youtube's rules and guidelines.
9:50:06 PM This is a real problem: I have real evidence.
9:50:29 PM Yes, in theory, the community guidelines should be enforced against me: instead, I am looking at totally fictional charges of "hate speech".
9:50:38 PM ^ That one example (shown in just a few seconds) really does prove my point.
9:51:05 PM Charles: I am sorry if you feel that way but you were given the option to appeal if you think we made a mistake.
9:51:10 PM In that video, I am discussing quantitative evidence that veganism has become less popular. (I am a vegan: for me, this is sad news, by the way.)
9:51:27 PM So the video is (at that time stamp) discussing these numbers on a chart.
9:51:40 PM This was categorized as "hate speech", and on appeal I was told that it is promoting violence.
9:51:48 PM Right now, Charles, I am appealing: this is my appeal.
9:52:02 PM What are you going to do with this information?
9:52:13 PM I cannot fill out a form, so I am explaining the situation to you.
9:52:34 PM Charles: Aright, I will forward the information to our internal team.
9:52:41 PM Charles: I will convert this chat to email.
9:52:48 PM (1) Dishonest and corrupt people within youtube have (repeatedly) categorized my videos as hate speech. (2) I can present evidence that the videos do not contain hate speech, in general, and they do not promote violence, in specific.
9:52:52 PM Charles: Is this the best email to reach you at [EMAIL ADDRESS]?
[…]
9:53:11 PM Here is the evidence, in two links:
9:53:18 PM Charles: Sure, go on.
9:53:21 PM (1) https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZMBWEewOamE
9:53:45 PM (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcgy9PNWAEA
9:53:56 PM ^ Those two videos present very real evidence of youtube employees lying.
9:54:23 PM My channel has been a victim of these lies: my experience with youtube show [sic] evidence of misconduct by youtube employees.
9:54:52 PM Okay, Charles, when do we deal with the other aspects of the appeal "form"?
9:55:29 PM [Quoting the webpage:]
—————
• A form will load on this page. Use this to write your appeal.
• Tell us about your channel and how it doesn’t violate the feedback above.
• Add links of your videos (particularly the most viewed).
—————
9:55:55 PM ^ Am I allowed to provide some other kind of positive statement about my youtube channel?
9:56:07 PM ^ Should I provide links (as suggested) to my most popular videos?
9:56:27 PM Charles: You can share details to your appeal here.
9:56:48 PM Charles: Just so you know that each appeal is carefully reviewed by our experts.
9:57:14 PM Right: and experts are human beings. They can lie, too. They can be guilty of misconduct. They can be biased.
9:57:15 PM Charles: As for the option to appeal, I am requesting you to share a screen recording for this to be checked.
9:58:20 PM "You can share details to your appeal here."
^ This is the instruction you've provided for me to follow.
9:59:33 PM Charles: As a Manager, I have thoroughly reviewed your concern and this final.
10:01:45 PM Charles: Are you still there?
10:02:05 PM Yes, I am writing my appeal.
10:02:22 PM Charles: I thought the appeal that you have shared started a while ago?
[This is not a masterpiece, but you can see precisely how many (or how few) minutes went into the composition (with the time-stamps indicating the California time zone).]
10:06:41 PM My channel has a ten year history of dealing with some of the most important political, religious and ecological controversies of our time: sometimes seriously and sometimes satirically. My most recent videos (uploaded to youtube) show this same mix of the serious and the satirical. Today, I uploaded a short parody song…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z28bs-184Ss
…whereas three days ago I uploaded a serious discussion of contemporary politics (lasting about sixteen minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp32EaA8jDA
The video immediately prior to that is over an hour long, and is comedic, but the comedy deals with a tremendous variety of serious political issues (including climate change, repeatedly).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBVGeH2B0hQ
I think that this mixture of the serious and the satirical has made my channel difficult for youtube employees to evaluate and, frankly, "difficult to censor":
obviously, the serious videos and the satirical videos can't be held to the same standard.
I have also, repeatedly, encountered the problem of youtube employees attributing opinions to me that I criticize (or satirize) in others. To use a real example, I have quoted racist statements from Kanye West, but I was excoriating Kanye West: my own video was anti-racist, but did quote and deal with racism.
I understand that many of the political issues I deal with are shocking and disturbing, from the critique of the vegan movement to the critique of modern religion, BUT THIS IS YOUTUBE: this website, Youtube, really was created to give people like me a voice.
This is a place for dissident intellectuals to challenge the presuppositions of members of the audience. Youtube should not silence someone like myself, who criticizes Jordan Peterson, while giving Jordan Peterson the right to speak unopposed. Thank you.
[…]
10:08:55 PM Eisel Mazard: I infer that you will now re-format this information, so that it can be transmitted to someone as an appeal?
10:09:23 PM Charles: Thanks for confirming.
10:09:44 PM Charles: No, I will forward your exact words.
10:10:02 PM Charles: Please expect an email within 24 hours.
