Okay, now I know what this is. Some dumb guy made a dumb video using this dumb girl's dumb footage to dumbly mock her, and she fought back with a dumb copyright strike. According to my limited understanding of fair use, she probably wasn't justified, but a group of not-quite-men started acting like the tanks were rolling into Tiananmen Square. Now we've essentially got ANITA SARKEESIAN FOR DUMMIES, with hoardes of angry incels cranking out attack videos, and Suzy Lu continuing to complain to YouTube, and get the attack videos taken down for violating community standards. And these self-righteous dipshits feel like their freedom is being violated.

Suzy Lu can complain about anything she finds objectionable. YouTube makes the decision what to do it about it. YouTube is responsible for their decisions, but, of course, YouTube incels find a teenage girl to be a much more appealing target than Google. Same as it ever was. Fuck these guys.

I've had videos taken down before. It always seems random and artibrary, because it is, and there's always someone getting away with more. That's how it goes. You're not being silenced. There are other places to put up your stupid videos. Nobody owes you access to the vast youtube audience.

so much effort...

more of JHMs weird pedo shit

I'm confused in 2 ways:

1. Why submit this at all?
2. Why did this even make it out of the hopper? PoeTV, you need to do better.

I get what you're saying about incels needing to shut up about their dumb videos being taken down, but youtube does need to be called out for how they arbitrarily handle what's acceptable and what isn't. They're fine protecting sexual predators, child abusers and people torturing live animals if they bring in enough views, but god forbid you call these people because then you're being a bully.

Youtube censorship doesn't just affect incels, it affects real people to.

I saw an onision video once, maybe ten years ago. I liked the name, or I wouldn't have remembered, and I don't remember what it was about.

I don't know what your argument is, but it appears to be long and involved, You don't want to put in that kind of effort, and I don't blame you. But I have no intention of doing all that googling in order to reverse-engineer what your point is.

Do we really need to do this? If YouTube is protecting sexual predators, I'm against that, but "protect" is a strong word, and so is "predator". I'm not saying you're wrong, but it sounds like a long story.

What we agree on is that YouTube uses its editorial power inconsistently. Obviously, people with a following get more consideration. I'm sure that about 20 seconds of thought went into the decision to take down one of my 60 view experimental monstrosities.