YouTube Issues Jeremy’s Channel a Community Guidelines Strike

Well, it finally happened. Last weekend, minutes after midnight on the very day my YouTube channel clicked past 30,000 subscribers, I received a “community guidelines” strike from the Google-owned company. You see, I . . . well, it’s hard to know exactly how I violated their community guidelines as they don’t actually bother to tell you.

Here are YouTube’s “Policies on content featuring firearms” (as of the time of this writing. Screen shot here):

YouTube prohibits certain kinds of content featuring firearms. Specifically, we don’t allow content that:

• Intends to sell firearms or certain firearms accessories through direct sales (e.g., private sales by individuals) or links to sites that sell these items. These accessories include but may not be limited to accessories that enable a firearm to simulate automatic fire or convert a firearm to automatic fire (e.g., bump stocks, gatling triggers, drop-in auto sears, conversion kits), and high capacity magazines (i.e., magazines or belts carrying more than 30 rounds).

• Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above. This also includes instructions on how to convert a firearm to automatic or simulated automatic firing capabilities.

• Shows users how to install the above-mentioned accessories or modifications.

And here’s the long version of what a YouTube strike looks like. It does not specifically state what aspect of the content violated their Community Guidelines:

Now, there’s a lot of chatter about precisely how my videos may have violated those guidelines. Sure, in the review video comparing the CMMG DefCan 3Ti, Q Half Nelson, and Dead Air Sandman TI, I show the process of removing and attaching a silencer. Maybe that violates the “shows users how to install the above-mentioned accessories or modifications” clause?

Probably not — you’d hope not — as the suppressors in my video are decidedly not homemade. They’re manufactured by licensed — in so many ways — corporations and are available only to folks who pass extensive background checks, are fingerprinted and photographed, register the silencer(s) with the Federal government, pay a $200 tax, and wait about nine months for approval.

Of course, throwing in “or […] accessories such as those listed above” sure gives YouTube a lot of leeway, eh?

But then again, as part of this same strike, YouTube also deleted my FN 15 Tactical II CA review video. Yup, you guessed it, that’s a California-compliant rifle. I provided none of their banned instructions and showed none of their verboten accessories.

YouTube Brownells Ban Social Media Guns

courtesy Facebook.com

My guess? I actually linked to Brownells, whose channel was removed from YouTube (it’s now back) something like 10 hours before I received my strike. Why? Because all of my videos link to Brownells, and the firearms-related content policies state that YouTube doesn’t allow content that . . .

Intends to sell firearms or certain firearms accessories […] or links to sites that sell these items. [ED: emphasis added]

Unless I’m missing something, that means all of my videos. Every. Single. One. That’s 423 of them as of this writing. Of course, it also applies to all of Brownells’ 1,797 videos, and they clearly just passed some sort of YouTube sniff test even though they focus on instructional videos, many of which directly intend to sell firearms and accessories and link to their own website.

I can fix this by manually editing each of my videos, one by one, and deleting any links in the video descriptions to Brownells or other sites that sell firearms or “certain” (but undefined) firearms accessories (maybe even Amazon?). While YouTube allowed me to edit all of my video descriptions in one bulk action to add text, which is how the Brownells link ended up on all of them, there is no way to bulk remove text.

Worse yet, I don’t know if this is actually the problem. I could spend an entire day deleting links only to continue receiving strikes, because the links may not be the cause of this strike or potential future strikes.

Thankfully, all I have to do to appeal YouTube’s decision is to click the hyperlink for either or both of my videos and submit the appeals form. Considering the “…appeal_type=reject” URL I see when hovering my mouse cursor over the links, I won’t get my hopes up. What kind of shameless and utter bulls**t is this, anyway?!?!

Bottom line? I’m showing and using legal products in a legal and responsible fashion, and apparently that’s not acceptable. I’ll be joining up at Full30 very soon, and will upload the two or three halfway decent videos I’ve made there and all future content will go there as well.

It’ll continue to post on YouTube as well, though, until and unless my channel is terminated (three strikes and you’re out). Like it or not, unless gun content completely disappears from the site entirely, YouTube is where the audience is.

In the meantime, if you’re so inclined I’d appreciate if you’d subscribe to my channel. Number of subscribers is about the only metric that matters when it comes to YouTube, advertisers, manufacturers (e.g. for borrowing review products), and others. If you’re feeling particularly froggy, I do have a Patreon page.

comments

  1. avatar WadeJ says:

    YouTube is clearly anti-gun and I don’t expect this to change. The People of the Gun get a lot of benefit from the content on YouTube; but are making YouTube money while putting up with navigating all of the additional rules. We need a pro-gun site where the People of the Gun can move to in mass and leave the anti’s behind.

    1. avatar Freebird says:

      There is , without any doubt, a coordinated effort and standing orders from BIG Power players like C.F.R. , ( Council on Foreign Relations ) and wealthy SJW’s like Bloomberg – Soros to SILENCE us …… not just about guns but about everything !

      Please watch the segments at 8 and 35 minute marks , you’ll quickly see it.
      Video of May 3 CFR meeting on the THREAT you and I pose to the old ” Gatekeepers ” of news + info.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        It’s been years since the CFR was any kind of real power. They’ve completely diluted their staff and message.
        Everything she said at the 8 minute and 35 minute mark is true.

        1. avatar Freebird says:

          Diluted or not , they have members – MONEY and Influence in many sectors of GOV, banking , university , and especially MEDIA.

          Fun 30 second clip where Sec. of State Hillary admits C.F.R. gives the orders;

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Not anymore. Their time has passed. It may come around again, and they are trying hard through the media, but they just don’t have the gravitas they used to. I’ve briefed members of the CFR, and sat on panels sponsored by them many times. They lost focus and lost a lot of authority.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        Laughable. The CFR? Join the 90s long past. The CRF is 1980 tinfoil hat nonsense. Just say “global Jewish conspiracy”/hatever nonsense you actually intend. The CFR never had any “power” or relevance in 1980 or today.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          The CFR is quite real and did at one time command a good bit of authority in and around DC. They had good research methodologies, lots of ideas, and we’re willing to package those ideas into policy road maps. Since most politicians have no ideas, many were willing to use the CFR research and road maps to influence their own long-term strategies. But back then the CFR focused almost entirely on keeping the US relevant in an increasingly globalized world. They were big Believers in the economic flat world theory. Of course, they were wrong and the panels that I sat on we’re ones where I argued that the world is quite siloed and spiky and would become more so.

  2. avatar little horn says:

    a pro-gun video sharing site is already underway. just can’t remember what its called. i think MAC is behind it or part of it or something.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      If only Jeremy had mentioned it. 😉 Oh well…

      I expect that Jeremy got the strike because the video didn’t have enough 6.5 Creedmoor content.

      1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

        6.5 Creedmore has been linked to the RUSSIANS. They want to steal the technology and develop 7.5 Creedmore. Jeremey’s reviews clearly hand them all they need to know.

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    The piecemeal and inconsistent nature of this all makes me think it isn’t anything YT is doing rather a bunch of shareblue style trolls targeting channels for “report” swarms hands on or using simple scripts. If YT wanted to they could just wipe all the channels outright and not restore anything but to my knowledge they’ve restored every banned gun channel eventually, haven’t they?

    The system does what it does and triggers automatically after x number of reports then YT requires human intervention to restore the channel which takes time.

    This is the problem with automated systems. Especially those operating on a guilty until innocent premise. Easy targets for no life trolls.

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      It claims these strikes were applied after a manual review. Then there’s that tidbit about submitting an appeal where it sure appears the be tagging me with a code designed to mark me for rejection.

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        That “appeal_type=reject” made me laugh.

  4. avatar 'Cause Every Girl Crazy 'Bout a Creedmoor Man says:

    Obviously they’re .308 fans.

  5. avatar Joe R. says:

    It’s their PHUN way to PHUCK you out of $$$.

    Demand google’s communist YouTube gets aborted.

  6. avatar billy-bob says:

    Redo the video with a Creedmoor and see if they complain.

  7. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “• Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition,…”

    So, videos on reloading are ‘verboten’?

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      Sure reads that way.

  8. avatar Bryce with Defensive Resources says:

    I have a very small channel, and just a week ago received my first strike from Youtube….. on a video that I put out 5 years ago…..

    Clearly on a mission of late

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      Ugh, that sucks. Sorry to hear it!

  9. avatar Marcus says:

    The Feds need their own FedTube.gov website to host video for different departments/agencies and for all citizens of the US to use as a public forum and I’m sure radicals like the Bern will be for a public website like this. The best part is it cant discriminate against content short of criminal acts or possible copyright violations making YouSuck face real competition and not just a USPS UPS type deal ether.

  10. avatar GS650G says:

    Clearly the world, the schools, millions of children, all of California, and points east are safer now that those videos are gone.
    Meanwhile plenty of filth remains on the air.

  11. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    The [email protected] community should be dragging YouTube in court constantly…On whatever constitutional grounds THEY can !

  12. avatar TruthTellers says:

    You didn’t violate any guidelines, unless linking to online retailers who sell gun related items is now against the guidelines.

    You’ve made many non-homemade suppressor videos before, there’s no reason a head to head comparison video would be against guidelines. There are videos on youtube now that show how to machine a suppressor that’s been legally registered and approved with the ATF. I’m surprised it’s still up, but it’s a 4 year old video.

    The new youtube gun guidelines are dumb anyway, they’ll do absolutely nothing to stop a crime with a gun, but will restrict free speech, which is real popular with Youtube today.

  13. avatar Bob says:

    I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the anti gun crowd is visiting and reporting as many gun videos as they can possible do 24/7. I wouldn’t even put it past them to pay people to constantly report them and claim to be offended in order to shut them down.
    This reeks of the tactics used by the left..

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      That’s absolutely what it is. Various groups flagging videos as offensive and as violating terms in a coordinated fashion. These guidelines violations don’t come to YouTube’s attention without somebody flagging the video. Then with gun content I do not believe those videos receive a legitimate review and the default protocol is deletion, strikes, termination, BS “appeals,” etc.

  14. avatar ironicatbest says:

    First the guns, then freedom of speach. I was going to say F You Tub, instead I decided to watch as many firearm related vids as possible.

  15. avatar Hannibal says:

    okay but in addition to youtube are you finding someplace to mirror your videos?

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      I have them all backed up but they aren’t hosted online anywhere else. Next stop for them will be Full30.

  16. avatar Doug in Post Falls says:

    If full30 hasn’t already made a Roku, PlayStation and xbone app they should get on it. This will make switching off of YouTube a whole bunch easier.

  17. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

    I think it would help the fight if TTAG posted a list of contacts at the NRA we could write or call directly. Maybe then we could pressure them to file a few lawsuits. Gunsite seemed to come out the winner against Intuit. Bottom line is some form of hit against the profit margin seems to be what works.

  18. avatar Gerald says:

    Move to d.tube. It is the only alternative to YouTube that might actually go somewhere.

  19. avatar zebra dun says:

    Go somewhere else.

  20. avatar Jay W. says:

    Total BS by You Tube. Just searched for “Madonna blow up White House” and got at least 7 pages of hits.
    In the “Snowflake World”, Madonna wanting to blow up Trump’s White House just makes sense, but anything to do with firearms is scary and at a minimum, inappropriate, but probably worse.

  21. avatar Mark says:

    Flag every single video you watch for review. The cutest kitten video. The most gorgeous nature scene. Everything.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email