[cmeacham98]

Going to have to call BS on this one. Youtube is well known for having a fickle algorithm that promotes or hides your video based on an opaque process. Things like "missing from subscriber's inboxes" or "not being promoted" happen all the time if the algorithm decides your video is a dud.

The idea that the CIA targeted this video is about as believable as the video author's other (evidence-less) claim they were visited by the DHS for "anti-American sentiment".

[farias0]

He claims to have received a visit from the DHS about his other video on police brutality called "America's Police Problem", months before the CIA video situation.

Yes, he doesn't offer evidence the DHS visited him, but I don't see which evidence he could have on that, if you know please share with us. As it stands I don't see any reason to call BS from the start, it seems to fit the DHS's MO, I don't see what's unbelievable about it.

On his video on the CIA, I've never seen another case of a YouTube video showing three content warnings (on Android) before letting you watch it. How directly involved the American government is on it is anyone's guess, it's probably a more systematic action from YouTube, but I wouldn't doubt the government directly requested to not promote it in any way.

[cmeacham98]

> Yes, he doesn't offer evidence the DHS visited him, but I don't see which evidence he could have on that, if you know please share with us.

Give the names and phone numbers of the DHS agents that he claims contacted him (and he claims he got a name + number). Provide any sort of previous communication he had about the event, even privately (obviously with the other party's permission). He tweets several times a day, but you're telling me he decided not to share any info about this story until some mostly-unrelated incident months later???

> As it stands I don't see any reason to call BS from the start, it seems to fit the DHS's MO, I don't see what's unbelievable about it.

No this is not the DHS's MO. No other person documenting police violence in the US (of which there are many) have claimed to receive a DHS visit. Why only the author?

> On his video on the CIA, I've never seen another case of a YouTube video showing three content warnings (on Android) before letting you watch it. How directly involved the American government is on it is anyone's guess, it's probably a more systematic action from YouTube, but I wouldn't doubt the government directly requested to not promote it in any way.

I only get 2 content warnings, and really? We seem to have hardcore walked back the claim YouTube is shadowbanning his video to "YouTube added an extra content warning!" - That's the best evidence of shadowbanning you have?

[farias0]

He has an older tweet mentioning the visit https://twitter.com/_SecondThought/status/132335626258786304...

Journalists surveilled by the DHS for documenting police violence in the US (the best I could do with your very specific request) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/31/dhs-intellig...

YouTube quickly rolled back on the supposed shadowban, but it's very well documented by users on Twitter, Reddit and YouTube, to the point he would need to have a bot army to fake it. I mentioned the warnings on the video as further evidence of YouTube (specifically or systematically, IDK) targeting the video.

Now where you have a good point in my opinion is that he could have shared info on the agents, if he had this info and was legally allowed to. There are reasons he could have not shared, but it's still a good point of speculation.

[cmeacham98]

That tweet is still months after the supposed visit and doesn't even reference the video it was "about".

> Journalists surveilled by the DHS for documenting police violence in the US

So you would agree that harassing random journalists and accusing them of "anti-American sentiments" isn't DHS's MO?

> YouTube quickly rolled back on the supposed shadowban, but it's very well documented by users on Twitter, Reddit and YouTube, to the point he would need to have a bot army to fake it.

What documentation? All I could find is stuff like "it didn't show up in my sub feed" which happens to all sorts of videos and all sorts of YouTubers. Where's the evidence YT specifically targeted this video?

Also, this really reeks of the standard magical thinking of conspiracy theories. If YT actually wanted to suppress this video, why wouldn't they just take it down with a bogus copyright strike? Those happen all the time on their platform. Of course, instead it makes way more sense YT used a specially designed shadowban that's never been seen anywhere else to deal with this video rather than taking the easy and more effective way out /s

[farias0]

I really don't know what you want here, my man. You're asking for irrefutable proof when no one can provide it. This is a curious set of events, not a legal case. If they had the proof you want this would be a much bigger story wouldn't it?

Your YouTube comment specifically makes no sense, copyright strike on what material? Also, didn't you just said that "shadowban" happens all the time? Now it's never been seen before?

Again, I have no idea what you want here.