Writing at The Truth About Guns, “Jeremy S” writes that suddenly, YouTube censors are finding new and inventive ways to deprive him of earning revenue on his incredibly popular firearms-related videos.
“Not exactly breaking news” that YouTube is demonetizing Second Amendment supporters, he writes, adding that, nevertheless, “the percentage of my videos…YouTube chooses to pull paid advertising from just keeps going up,” he writes, including a graphic in his piece that shows the number of demonetized offerings.
And one video on the graphics list provided with the article shows that it was “reject” for “inappropriate content.”
In all, 20 of the 29 videos Jeremy S included on his list had been demonetized. But why? What was the reason YouTube censors gave? Did he violate any of the platform’s “advertiser-friendly content guidelines?”
They include “controversial issues and sensitive events” such as “war, political conflict, terrorism and extremism” — nope.
Also, “drugs and dangerous products or substances” such as — well, drugs — including “illegal drugs, regulated drugs or substances, or other dangerous products not suitable for advertising.” Is this what YouTube censors used to justify pulling ad funding — that guns are “dangerous products?” If so, why is this section primarily about “drugs” and “substances?”
How about the section on “harmful or dangerous acts?” Well, Jeremy S is teaching people about firearms and ammunition, he’s not advocating anything “harmful or dangerous” regarding firearms.
“Hateful content?” Nope; this doesn’t fit, either. (Related: YouTube banning all gun videos in latest censorship assault on liberty… but a new video site welcoming gun videos launches soon.)
There are other inappropriate sections as well — “incendiary and demeaning”; “sexually suggestive”; and “inappropriate use of family entertainment characters,” but again, none of these fit.
Ah, it must be the general section on “violence” that led YouTube to demonetize Jeremy S, right? It says:
Video content where the focal point is on blood, violence, or injury, when presented without additional context, is not suitable for advertising. Violence in the normal course of video gameplay is generally acceptable for advertising, but montages where gratuitous violence is the focal point is not. If you’re showing violent content in a news, educational, artistic, or documentary context, that additional context is important.
Well, no…that doesn’t fit, either.
So, what, then? Probably just the fact that Jeremy S’s content is positive about guns in general, and to the Left, that is reason enough to oppose them. Don’t learn about guns, the right to keep and bear arms, or why people have an inherent right to self-defense, oh, no…just ban videos or, even better, let someone who used to make money posting them be demonetized instead. That way YouTube can say, ‘Hey, we’re pro-Second Amendment — we never took those videos down!’ — by making it economically untenable to produce and post them.
Meanwhile, there is a true-blue pro-freedom (and certainly pro-Second Amendment) video-sharing platform that is miles ahead of YouTube in terms of endorsing liberty and free speech: Brighteon.com.
Born out of founder Mike Adams’ desire to created a platform that held true to our founding principle of freedom of speech and expression, the Health Ranger created Brighteon with just the scenario in mind that Jeremy S is facing: Targeted anti-conservative, anti-constitutional behavior from the existing social media giants.
Even better, Brighteon is getting a technology facelift in the coming weeks that will enable the platform to become free-standing and not reliant on upstream infrastructure providers.
If you’re a content producer who’s tired of “Twitter jail” or YouTube demonetizing, switch to Brighteon.com.
Sources for this article include: