YouTube Censorship: The Video They Didn't Want You to See!

Two days after its release, last week’s video on  the Epstein files was on track to become the most   successful upload in my channel’s history.  It had gained a million views in 24 hours,   outpacing my previous record holder  by nearly 40 percent. The trajectory

suggested that I had a big hit on my hands. Then, a yellow dollar sign appeared on my   YouTube dashboard, signaling that the  video had been "demonetized." You would   expect that to mean that I just stop earning  ad revenue from the video - but in practice,

the consequences are a bit more severe. When a  video is deemed inappropriate to run ads on - the   platform’s incentive to distribute that video  evaporates. The recommendation engine – which   is designed to maximize revenue for YouTube,  quietly shelves the content – viewers can

still find it if they look for it - but for my  video - the view count flatlined immediately.   The platform provided no specific reason for the  decision, just the statement that the video was   not advertiser friendly. Sometimes I’m told –  they’ll tell you which precise moment in the

video was deemed offensive – and you can then  clip that section out. In this case – it says   that after a human review (which I requested)  that there are controversial issues throughout   the video – meaning that there is nothing that I  can do to make it acceptable. When I go through

the video and look at YouTubes policies -  their decision is difficult to understand.   The content was a thirty-seven-minute analysis  of the inconsistencies in the Epstein files,   specifically with regard to FBI redactions that  appeared to violate the Transparency Law passed

by Congress. The video contained no profanity, no  violence, no descriptions of Epstein’s activities   and no inappropriate imagery was shown on screen. The audience metrics confirm that the content   was not offensive to viewers. At the time of  demonetization, the video had accrued 90,000

likes and maintained a like-to-dislike ratio  of 98.9 percent - which is an unusually high   approval rating for a video – higher than on most  of my videos, implying that the viewers—the very   people advertisers supposedly need protection  from - found the content acceptable and valuable.

The title, "The Epstein Files are Worse Than You  Think!", was unambiguous too. No viewer clicked   on it expecting a cooking tutorial only to be  ambushed by a critique of the justice system.

To understand why this happens on YouTube, we  need to look back to the 'YouTube Adpocalypse.'   Years ago, after Logan Paul’s infamous vlog  from a Japanese forest triggered a massive   advertiser exodus, big brands paused their YouTube  advertising campaigns. It was a simple commercial

calculation: they worried that appearing next  to offensive content (like a Logan Paul video)   might be misconstrued as an endorsement  or simply link their brand to something   awful in the viewer's mind. YouTube responded by  drastically tightening its creator guidelines.

If you wanted to earn advertising money on the  platform – you couldn’t behave like Logan Paul…   Now, I recognize that YouTube is a for-profit  business. As a creator whose videos are often   sponsored, I am also accustomed to dealing with  advertisers and fully appreciate their concerns.

Businesses have a clear duty to protect  their brands, and YouTube needs to organize   the platform to secure that revenue.  This arrangement benefits everyone:   advertiser spending funds the whole ecosystem.  If a video is genuinely hateful or dangerous,

demonetization is a logical business decision  for YouTube as it preserves free speech while   insulating advertisers from toxic content. The  problem is that this mechanism has evolved into a   blunt instrument that penalizes serious journalism  under the guise of brand safety. Advertisers

routinely buy slots on mainstream cable news  programs that discuss war, crime, and political   corruption. Yet when an independent creator  examines these same topics with equal rigor,   the algorithm flags it as being inappropriate. The evidence suggests that we are not dealing

with a calculated conspiracy to silence a specific  controversial story, but instead a broken system   at YouTube. I spoke with a friend who runs a  much larger channel than mine who has produced   multiple videos on the same topic – and asked  whether his Epstein videos had been demonetized,

given that two of my three uploads on the subject  have now been penalized. He reported no issues,   noting only that he is careful to avoid profanity  and that he bleeps out any sensitive terms.   This is reassuring, as it implies there  is nothing sinister at play. However,

it reveals that YouTube has an arbitrary system  where demonetization depends less on the subject   matter and possibly more on the algorithmic  status of the uploader. Of course, given the   platform's opacity, we can’t know this for sure. There has been some research on how Demonetization

works on YouTube – but before I go through that –  let me tell you about our video sponsor Saily - an   e sim provider who makes it incredibly easy  to travel and stay connected without having   to pay ridiculous foreign roaming charges, find  a local SIM card or waste your time constantly

trying to find public Wi-Fi. I hadn't heard of  this technology before trying out Saily this   summer - but it's an app that you install  on your phone which allows you to stay   connected in over 200 places around the world. There is no need to buy and swap physical SIM

cards when you travel.You just download the  app once and use it whenever you are abroad.   You choose how much data you want and for how  long. It's way cheaper than roaming and takes   seconds to set up. You just select the country you  are travelling to and plan and activate an e-SIM

before you leave home - when you land, your phone  automatically connects to a local network with no   hidden charges. There is no fussing around at  the airport, you can book an uber, access GPS   or make a call. So if you've got travel plans,  click the link in the description or scan this

QR code to download the app. Then choose a plan in  the country you're going to and use my code BOYLE,   at checkout to get an exclusive 15% discount. Researchers have termed this problem "censorship   by proxy." A 2022 study found  that demonetization effectively

acts as a censor because it creates a financial  disincentive for creators to cover "risky" topics.   The study’s machine learning models show that the  algorithm favors "safe" metrics like channel size   and video duration over the specific details of  the content. Creators essentially build up trust

with the algorithm - and once trusted, are less  likely to be demonetized. This possibly explains   why my second Epstein video was demonetized  so quickly. The study also shows that when   the algorithm decides a topic is "unsafe,"  it restricts distribution, making the content

almost invisible to all but the most dedicated  subscribers who will seek every new video out.   This "safety" filter—as the authors  note—notoriously fails to grasp context.   The channel Vlogging Through History documented  this issue, reporting that his educational videos

on World War Two were demonetized simply for  displaying a two-second clip of a flag from   that period - or for discussing the bad thing  that happened in 2001. The algorithm groups   Nick [CENSOR] and a historian explaining  an important World War two battle into the

same category – and then - both face  the same penalty: the revenue cliff.   For this reason, creators sometimes feel forced to  modify their language to survive. This has given   rise to what is known as 'algospeak,' a surreal  new online dialect where creators replace clinical

terms with nonsense words—saying 'something'  instead of 'something else' or 'PF file' instead   of 'bleep'—hoping to slip past the automated  filters. Serious discourse then becomes a childish   code, degrading the quality of information in  exchange for algorithmic safety. In my video,

I used the correct terms because it seems  ridiculous to me to speak in a code that my   audience might not understand—and because we  are discussing a serious topic. The algorithm

responded by demonetizing the video. This type of suppression matters because   the format of online video offers something  traditional media often can’t: depth. A cable news   segment typically lasts four minutes; a newspaper  article runs for around 700 words. My video was

thirty-seven minutes long – and attempted to  give a balanced view of what had been revealed   by the government and why it matters. This long  form format allows for a detailed examination   of complex timelines—such as the fact that Epstein  was first reported to the FBI in 1996, or that his

financial crimes date back to the 1970s. It allows  us to explore the systemic failures of the FBI and   the DOJ that span multiple administrations, rather  than reducing the story to a partisan soundbite.

When algorithms penalize this type of depth  and discussion, they don't just hurt creators;   they harm public understanding of complex topics.  The released Epstein files are heavily redacted,   often in ways that don’t appear to comply with  the Transparency Law. These redactions obscure

the names of potential co-conspirators while  leaving victims exposed. Covering these dry,   procedural details is essential for holding  power to account, yet it is exactly this type   of content that can be judged "non-advertiser  friendly” – by the algorithm – even if not by

advertisers – like my video sponsors or viewers. This creates a bizarre paradox. Mainstream news   outlets in many parts of the world are  increasingly buckling under financial   and regulatory pressure. It is not just about  threats from the FCC to strip broadcast licenses;

it is about the bottom line. We have seen  networks pay millions in settlements to   politicians to resolve legal disputes, effectively  paying for their right to operate. We saw this   quite clearly when Bari Weiss recently shelved  a fully vetted 60 Minutes investigation into

deportations because she said the White House  had refused to comment. As the correspondent   noted - if the government’s refusal to participate  becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have   effectively handed them a "kill switch" for any  reporting they find inconvenient. Simultaneously,

corporate consolidation has become a point of  political leverage. The Warner Bros. Discovery   merger remains stalled in regulatory limbo, with  the administration signaling that approval hinges   on 'correcting' the editorial stance of its  news division, CNN. For media conglomerates

burdened by massive debt, this creates an  existential dilemma: they can maintain their   journalistic independence, or they can secure  the regulatory approval they need to survive.   Increasing numbers are choosing survival. The independent creators who fill the gap

fare no better. The United States has recently  fallen to 57th out of 180 countries when ranked   for press freedom. It is seemingly easier  for politicians to coerce the few remaining   broadcast giants than to go after millions of  independent bloggers, podcasters, and YouTubers.

Yet, if the primary platform for independent  video journalism effectively taxes serious   reporting by removing its revenue and its reach,  that ranking will likely slide even lower."   YouTube is not merely an American platform;  it has global reach. In countries with strict

state censorship, citizens often rely on  VPNs to access YouTube as one of their   few windows into the unfiltered world. If the  platform itself begins to sanitize content to   appease Western politicians or advertisers, it  inadvertently aligns itself with the goals of

those restrictive regimes. By disincentivizing the  coverage of serious topics, YouTube shuts off the   'escape valve' for global information,  homogenizing the internet into a safe,   corporate-friendly feed that challenges no one. There is a distinct irony to digital censorship:

the Streisand Effect. Attempts to  suppress information often make it   more popular. After I posted a community update  explaining that my video had been demonetized,   thousands of viewers watched the video  specifically because it had been flagged.

The like to dislike ratio went even higher and  many new viewers subscribed to the channel.   Viewers understand that in an era of algorithmic  curation, the "unsafe" label is sometimes a proxy   for "important." Similarly the 60 minutes episode  that had been shelved by Bari Weiss – had already

been broadcast in Canada – Canadian viewers  uploaded it to the internet and it quickly   went viral online as viewers rushed to see the  episode that they had not been allowed to see.   It is crucial to distinguish between the  "politics" of this case and the "morality"

of it. My critique of the decline in press  freedom under the current administration   should not be misconstrued as a partisan attack.  The failure to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein and his   co-conspirators is not a Republican issue or  a Democrat issue; it is a moral issue that

hints at the institutional rot in our justice  system that spans decades and administrations.   History shows that press freedom is vulnerable  under leadership of any stripe. While attacks   on the press have risen by 25 percent this  year, a look at the data from the U.S. Press

Freedom Tracker reveals that the highest number  of journalists arrested or assaulted in recent   history actually occurred in 2020. These  incidents were largely linked to the civil   unrest surrounding the Black Lives Matter  protests and the enforcement of pandemic

restrictions—these protests were concentrated  in cities and states governed by Democrats—and   so it is no surprise that with a spike in  violence in these states there was also a   spike in violence against journalists. This  shows that the urge to suppress uncomfortable

press coverage is not unique to one party; it  is a reflex of power that manifests whenever   the streets—or the internet—become too noisy. This is why the Epstein case is so critical:   it unites the public against that oppressive  reflex. The legislative push to release

the Epstein files enjoyed rare bipartisan  support. Congress voted almost unanimously   to bring these documents to light; only  one lawmaker voted against the release.   The frustration about how this case is being dealt  with is not limited to Washington either. At a

recent Turning Point USA event—a gathering of the  MAGA faithful—Laura Ingraham asked the audience   to clap if they were satisfied with the results  of the Epstein investigation. The room didn’t

clap. They booed. People of all political  persuasions get what the algorithm seems   to be missing - that the Epstein story is  a moral scandal about a two-tier justice   system, not a political football. This shared outrage makes the 'unsafe'

categorization by YouTube even more baffling.  The public is united in wanting to know why,   for example, current FBI Director Kash Patel  claimed there were no perpetrators other than   Epstein, when the released files indicate the  FBI identified ten potential co-conspirators.

They want to know why Patel claimed to have  seen footage proving nothing untoward happened   in Epstein’s cell, only to release a video  recorded in a different part of the cell   block with a critical minute of footage  conspicuously missing due to a 'glitch’.

Covering these discrepancies is not "hate speech"  or "harassment." It is the basic function of a   free press. When smaller channels see my video  get demonetized, they are likely to take note.   If you are running a small channel and are  relying on advertising checks to pay your

rent - the signal sent by demonetization would be  clear: "Don’t touch this topic. Stick to gaming.   Stick to drama. Leave the questioning of authority  to the professionals at news organizations who are   currently too frightened to actually do it.” A final, bitter irony defines this whole

experience. The algorithm can quickly flag  my video as "advertiser unfriendly" yet it   fails to police actual fraud. In recent weeks, my  likeness has been used here on YouTube in deepfake   videos promoting scams. Despite my repeated  reports, YouTube has been slow to remove these

impersonations. We are left with a system that  penalizes journalism for being too serious, while   dragging its feet on removing AI-generated fakes. The yellow demonetization icon offers one positive   aspect – and that is transparency. Being notified  of demonetization is preferable to being silently

throttled in the background, a practice known as  'shadowbanning.' At least I am told when I’ve been   censored, even if the reasoning remains vague.  In other parts of the world, censorship is a much   more frightening event. Here, it is not a knock  on the door, but a quiet algorithmic nudge. It is

less dramatic, but in the long run, it may be just  as effective at narrowing the public discourse.   My plan is to continue covering the topics I  find interesting and that I think my viewers   will find interesting too - whether the videos are  monetized or not. But for the broader ecosystem,

this algorithmic censorship is worth worrying  about. It forces us to ask what YouTube wants   to be. If the platform’s incentives aggressively  filter out the "boring" work of holding power to   account—the deep dives, the legal analysis,  the historical context—then it ceases to be

a digital public square. It risks becoming  a place solely for childish entertainment,   safe for advertisers but useless for democracy. If you want to watch my demonetized video – here   is a link – the great thing is that you can  watch it without adverts. Our sponsors keep

the channel going – so if you are travelling  soon - don’t forget to check out our sponsor   Saily using the link in the description. Have  a great day and talk to you again soon. Bye.