Yesterday I got an email from the trillion dollar multinational corporation known as Google. They told me that they had to remove some of my content, and give me a nice hard e-slap on the wrist in the form of a strike.

I wasn’t familiar with the video that was holocausted, and I could no longer find it on the site. Our Odysee channel, which you must subscribe to, reposts all the content that we import to YouTube. I searched for the video on our uploads page and couldn’t find it. Then I decided to search the entire site and found this. 

Lo and behold, the eight month old video of two Proud Boys confronting a drag groomer got holocausted by YouTube. Yes, their troon golems really are that petty.

There is no point in appealing, but I decided to anyway. I had previously appealed a warning of theirs, only to have their appeal process send me back an “appeal rejected” email not even ten minutes later. 

That was a much longer process. Since the entire appeals system is fake, I appreciate them streamlining it.

They tell me that most creators never get a second strike. Ironic. 

This is actually our fourth, and they’ve been censoring but not striking our channels near constantly. The strikes expire after ninety days, so all that needs to happen is for none of the months old videos that could easily be removed for vague, opaque rules violations get another strike. I’m sure that’ll happen.  


In the meantime we won’t be able to upload for 2 weeks, which might set back the start time of the Traffic Soyboys video series, although it’s not that big of a deal. Interestingly I noticed that the most popular videos were making fun of Juden Peterstein

Have to protect the Penis Washer at all costs. 

The YouTube channel was useful, but at this point it should be considered a writeoff. I’ll be surprised if it lasts even the two weeks where we can’t upload to it, and that’ll be it. Again, follow us on Odysee.

You may also like


  1. Shortly after the Communications Decency Act was passed in 1996, the ACLU successfully sued to weaken some of its provisions related to indecency/obscenity:

    Here is some text of the key §230:

    [ (2)Civil liability
    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
    (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; … ]

    Note intentionally vague language like ‘harassing’ and ‘otherwise objectionable’ — obviously, this is being massively abused by tech companies to avoid liability when censoring content that is very clearly ‘constitutionally protected’.

    This looks ripe for a savvy legal challenge, which is how activists got Roe v Wade overturned.

    But because so-called conservatives are useless, there has been on serious legal challenge to date.

  2. […]… […]

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in Censorship