Category: Human rights

YouTube: Inquisition-style verdict

Blog, freedom of speech, Human rights, International, World

Brussels 24.09.2026 Today I have recevied one more vague letter regarding the reasons for closing my channel for 90 days. Plenty of words without any evidence of violation. (Image: courtesy Portuguese Gravity)
Here is the “final answer” from the YouTube:
“Thank you for taking time to write back.
“I understand that you strongly disagree with our enforcement decision and are seeking a specific breakdown of which aspect of the policy your video violated, especially when comparing your content to major news networks.
“As previously stated, your video was reviewed by our Trust and Safety team and found to violate our policy regarding violent extremists or criminal organizations. When a video is removed under this policy, it means the content was found to be produced by, or was glorifying, violent criminal or terrorist organizations.
“While we recognize that you are reporting on a global news event as a journalist, our internal specialists evaluated your specific video and determined that the way the content was presented did not meet the strict requirements for an Educational, Documentary, Scientific, or Artistic (EDSA) exception.
“For security reasons, we do not provide line-by-line breakdowns or timestamps of policy violations, nor do we debate comparisons with other channels’ content. If you believe other channels are violating our policies, we encourage you to use the reporting tool on those specific videos.
“Because the specialized team has fully reviewed your appeal and their decision is final, we will not be conducting another review or overturning this strike. As we have provided all the available context regarding this enforcement, we consider this specific matter closed and cannot offer any further escalations.”

As you see from the text above there is no explanation offered for the decision to deprive me of freedom of speech for 90 days. The shutting down of my YouTube channel for three months leads to a total loss of the audience. There is a clear intention to damage, and destroy me as an influencer.
Why? Why leave exactly the same information with the TV channels unhindered? I have an explanation: we, the creators, are used to attracting audiences, and are being removed as soon as we start competing with the TV channels.
In the piece destroyed by the YouTube censors I have informed the audiences about the death of Prigozhin in the plane crash earlier than the big broadcasters, and quoted competent sources – PMC Wagner themselves.
Meanwhile the TV channels are failing miserably, losing trust of the spectators, who are switching to more trusted sources as bloggers, and influencers.

https://platform.x.com/widgets.js

As you see the TV channels entered the digital platforms, and tried to collect missing views in this format, cutting their news production in shorter videos, mimicKing the style of bloggers, and podcasters.

If comparing the situation with the words of YouTube CEO Neal Mohan the structure of the “foodchain” is as follows: welcoming the newcomers who are potential audience for the TV Channels presented on the platform; attract them by the original content of the creators, let them grow until a few of them are becoming competitors, and they erase them.
My channel was silenced after I got 125K subscribers, and millions of views.

YouTube CEO Neal Mohan has frequently emphasized that supporting and empowering newcomers is a core priority for the platform. Since taking over as CEO in 2023, Mohan has focused on growing the creator economy and expanding monetization so that hundreds of thousands of new creators can earn money for the first time. In his official annual strategy letters and interviews, Mohan’s approach to welcoming new voices on the platform. Yes, they are the spectators, and soon as they are competitive creators representing the alternative to the TV Channels they are kicked out.
Look at me now!

YouTube: my channel arrest for “intentions”?!

Politics, World, Conflict, Human rights, International, Blog, freedom of speech

Brussels 23.09.2026 Today I received an answer from YouTube support which remained vague. The relation between my announcement of death of the boss of the “criminal organisation”*, and the accusations of the Community Rules violations are not established. All the other announcements of the same event stayd on display on YouTube. The event was reported globaly considered of pulibc importance.
YouTube answer: “We understand your concerns regarding the recent policy action taken on your video, especially given your long-standing career in international journalism and the presence of similar reporting across major news outlets.

Content intended to praise, promote, or aid violent extremist or criminal organizations is not allowed on YouTube. These organizations are not allowed to use YouTube for any purpose, including recruitment. In some cases, we may make exceptions for content with educational, documentary, scientific or artistic context, including content that is in the public’s interest.

We may terminate your channel or account for repeated violations of the Community Guidelines or Terms of Service. We may also terminate your channel or account after a single case of severe abuse, or when the channel is dedicated to a policy violation. We may prevent repeat offenders from taking policy trainings in the future. Learn more about channel or account terminations.

I understand your frustration, but please know that we have thoroughly investigated your request and, I’m afraid there is nothing more I can add at this stage. ”

My answer today:
“Thank you for your answer.
However it doesn’t contain specific information about the grounds of the measure taken against me.
You write: ““Content intended to praise, promote, or aid violent extremist or criminal organizations is not allowed on YouTube”, pointing to three unacceptable intentions:

Intention to praise criminal organizations
Intention to promote criminal organizations
Intention to aid criminal organizations

Which of them did you apply to my video?
Taking into consideration the gravity of the stigma YouTube cast on me as a journalist, these accusations can not be taken lightly.

YouTube CEO Neal Mohan has already made a number of public promises to improve the system, and I count on his promises.
So far I haven’t received any explanation how the rule you have quoted correlates with the information I had released on the death of the boss of the criminal organisation on August 23, 2023 three years ago.

It was reported on a global scale, and all the other announcements of the same event are left on YouTube display unhindered. I have already sent you a list of the TV channels presented on your platform with exactly the same information.”

Please find the information in my preiouvs posts.
Those who would like to stand for freedom of speech, can sing a petition below:
https://www.change.org/p/stop-neal-mohan-from-being-ceo-of-youtube?source_location=topics_page

Общая ситуация со свободой слова в Европе – описание здесь:

YouTube vs Me: necrology as advertising ?!

Blog, freedom of speech, Human rights, International, Russia, World

Brussels, September 21, 2026. Dear viewers of my YouTube channel @AnnaVanDensky, today I received a response from Mr. Neal Mohan’s team that took me by surprise. It concerns a video announcing the death of the Wagner PMC leader in a plane crash. That video—posted three years ago, on August 23, 2023 — was taken down THREE YEARS LATER, and the channel was suspended for three months on the following grounds:

“We reviewed the video and concluded that it violates our Community Guidelines.
“YouTube prohibits content that praises, promotes, or facilitates the activities of violent criminal organizations.” Such organizations are prohibited from using YouTube for any purpose, including recruitment.

“We removed the video because it violates our policy regarding violent extremist or criminal organizations: it contains material created by such organizations or glorifying their activities.
“Additional information can be found in the Help Center.”

So, does the announcement of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s death—confirmed by the Wagner PMC—contain material “created by the PMC” or material that “glorifies” it? There is a significant difference. The question is: how can a report on the death of Prigozhin and his military strategist Utkin in a plane crash possibly “glorify” their activities? I won’t get carried away with irony regarding the “appeal” of such an advertisement—the prospect of dying in a plane crash. Instead, I will address the argument that censors are likely to try to level against me.

Under US law, the Wagner PMC is designated as a “Significant Transnational Criminal Organization”; however, the status of a full-fledged terrorist organization on the official US list (FTO) entails specific legal nuances and distinctions.

Consequently, quoting a statement from a criminal—or even terrorist—organization that confirms the death of its leader is lawful if done for informational, journalistic, or academic purposes. Simply reproducing or relaying factual information originating from a group deemed illegal under US jurisdiction does not violate the law.

Major media outlets regularly quote official statements …or press releases from organizations designated as terrorist or criminal. For example, reports on the death of a leader resulting from a drone strike or a special operation, intended to inform the public. Coverage of events of global significance is protected by principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, such as the First Amendment to the US Constitution or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I have currently initiated correspondence with the YouTube team to clarify the exact nature of the claims against me. I am awaiting a response. If I do not receive one in the coming days, I will have to seek legal counsel. Naturally, slander cannot be left unaddressed. Stay tuned!

(Image above: courtesy Elimende Inagella)

Letter to Postimees editorial

Blog, EU, Human rights

Brussels 19.09.2025
Postimees Editor-in-Chief Priit Hõbemägi

Dear Sir,
In spite of the EU prohibition of the publication of the personal data due to strict data protection regulations GDPR, Postimees newspaper blatantly breached the law again, and issued the second article, publishing my personal information without my consent, moreover the information published was inaccurate, manipulated, and in some passages totally false, thus damaging my reputation of an independent journalist. I am not a civil servant, governmental official, or an elected representative to be exempted from the general rule of the GDPR regulations, protecting personal data.

The GDPR regulations are effective since May 25, 2018, thus they grant individuals a significant control over their personal data, and place strict obligations on organizations worldwide that process EU citizens’ data. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) does not permit the general publication of private data, as it prioritizes the protection of individuals’ privacy and requires a legal basis for any processing of personal data. Both articles about me are published after the date of the entering of the regulation into force, thus they are liable to the regulation.

As the editorial is obliged to respect the GDPR in publication of personal data, which is permissible only under specific conditions, such as obtaining informed consent, which was not asked by your employee Meinhard Pulk, who collected, manipulated, deformed, and published my personal data in incoherent way, and without my consent.

Unfortunately the second time in a new article the employee Meinhard Pulk provided readership with intentionally inaccurate, false, and incomplete information, with a clear pattern to mislead the public, and damage my professional reputation.

As professionals in media Postimees editorial is obliged to know that the intentional distortion of information is called disinformation, or information manipulation, when someone intentionally provides incomplete, inaccurate, or false information with the goal of manipulating the audience. Distortion can take various forms, including providing incomplete, incoherent information changing the context, or intentionally distorting part of the information.

Taking into consideration mentioned above, I demand respect my rights, and call the Postimees editorial to return to the legal methods of processing, and publishing information, removing my personal data from both issued articles. I would like also to remind you for the future, that I am the only owner of my personal data, having the exclusive rights to administrate it.

The information to be removed from both articles: my photo (image), my locations data, characteristics as my political opinions, my cultural background, my employment history.

This letter is send to you in good faith, and in accordance with the GDPR regulator recommendations in line with the wish to settle the arguments in the spirit of the good will. In case you ignore my request, I will start a formal procedure, demanding the penalties, and claiming the damages as foreseen by the regulator.

NB! Any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of Regulation has the right to receive compensation the damage suffered.

Regards,
Anna

EU Media: Ursula’s Colonial remnants

Blog, EU, Human rights, Politics

Brussels 30.03.2025 During the hearing on the European Commission self-glorification “propaganda” the MEP Elisabeth DIERINGER ( @E_Dieringer_MEP ) said that she is concerned with the accumulating of accreditation refusals for independent journalists, who are not allowed to enter the institutions press-events.
The problem manifested itself during the second term of Ursula von der Leyen in a way it became visible to broader public. Less than modest presence of journalists during press-conferences can be perceived by a TV spectator as a lack of interest, however if one takes interest in the EU Commission accreditation rules an alternative vision of causes of this feeble presence occurs. It is also useful to remind that accreditation is a form of public control of the institutions performance.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

To receive the annual accreditation to the EU institutions: the press-centers of the European Commission, European Council, and the European Parliament, a journalist should be compliant with three criteria: become a resident of Belgium, regularly cover the EU affairs, and… pass the financial screening.

The financial screening is described as follows: “journalism must be the main source of income”, meaning a candidate should submit the totality of financial documents for last two years to an anonyms Committee composed by an unknown criteria, who will consider the entirety of the income, and pronounce their judgement. Within these rules, imposed by Ursula von der Leyen Commission two elements are especially striking, the request to submit the financial documents without any frame to guarantee proper handling of the private financial information; and anonymity of the “judges”.
@MCC_BrusselsThese Commission financial screening demands are at odds with the rights of media companies to keep the information about the fees to freelances confidential. Paradoxically Ursula von der Leyen has been ultra defensive regarding the grants of the European Commission to media companies, keeping the information as top secret, although thanks to the MCC ( @MCC_Brussels) report signed by Thomas Fazi, it became clear that tens, and hundreds of millions of public funds are distributed in undisclosed procedures to ensure positive coverage of the EU institution’s activities.

On the flipside is the submitting of the entirety of financial documents to Ursula von der Leyen Commission anonyms Committee without any obligation from their behalf to guarantee a minimum discretion. On contrary to tax authorities the Commission’s Committee doesn’t establish any regulatory frame in treating this external financial information.

The other aspect of the unusual among organizations request for financial screening of the income of the journalist is the basis of this initiative is rooted in Belgium Colonial history. In 1963 King Albert II signed a law, which was officially was designed to protect the status of journalist in the society, but in reality this piece of legislation to transform journalism into a price prohibitive profession, unattainable for Africans, who broke away from Empire. Nowadays in Belgium the situation is unchanged, and preserving the legislation-remnant of the other era.
However the European Commission as an international organization is not obliged to follow the suit, and replicated the rules based on Colonial era frustrations, and inhibitions.

https://commission.europa.eu/about/contact/press-services/media-accreditation_en

Nevertheless the most egregious element is not the totalitarian impulse of Ursula von der Leyen Commission to inspect pockets of journalists as such, but establishing the correlation between earning, ana professional status, which allows those journalists who receive generous grants from the Commission to be in the first ranks in this shrouded obscure scheme. Commission distributes grants, and than grants accreditation to financially successful recipients of their own generosity. What a travesty! Ultimus hypocrita omnis…
.

Ukraine: accession and hurdles

Blog, Conflict, EU, Human rights, Politics

Brussels 25.06.2024 The EU today held the first Intergovernmental Conference at ministerial level to open accession negotiations with Ukraine.

This follows the decision by the European Council on 14-15 December 2023 to open accession negotiations with Ukraine, and the approval by the Council of the Negotiating Framework for the negotiations with Ukraine on 21 June, in accordance with the revised enlargement methodology.

The EU delegation was led by Hadja Lahbib, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of Belgium, accompanied by Commissioner for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Olivér Várhelyi. The delegation of Ukraine was led by Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna.

The EU reiterated its resolute condemnation of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and stated its readiness to continue to support Ukraine and its people against Russia’s ongoing war for as long as it takes and as intensely as needed.

The EU underlined that Ukraine is already a close partner of the EU.  Its Association Agreement with the EU, which also includes the far-reaching Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, entered into force in 2017 and has been provisionally applied since 2014. It is the basis for extensive cooperation between the EU and Ukraine in a broad range of areas. The EU and Ukraine are closely aligned on foreign and security policy, and the EU encourages Ukraine to continue its positive trend towards full alignment with the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy.

The EU has now invited the Commission to continue to assess the state of preparedness of Ukraine for opening negotiations in specific areas and identify the issues that will most likely come up in the negotiations, starting with the fundamentals’ cluster which, in accordance with the Negotiating Framework, will be opened first.

As a future member state, Ukraine will be expected to continue to adhere to the values listed in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, namely the respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

At present there are a number of questions regarding the human rights, namely the
The Treaty on European Union sets out the conditions (Article 49) and principles (Article 6(1)) to which any country wishing to become a member of the European Union (EU) must conform.

Certain criteria must be met for accession. These criteria known as the Copenhagen criteria were established by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 and strengthened by the Madrid European Council in 1995.

They are:

    • stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
    • a functioning market economy and the ability to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the EU;
    • the ability to take on the obligations of membership, including the capacity to effectively implement the rules, standards and policies that make up the body of EU law (the ‘ acquis ’), and adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

Ukraine faces unprecedented challenges affecting gender equality and the enjoyment of equal rights and opportunites by women, particularly those facing multiple forms of discrimination. Structural discrimination of women persists in both the public and private spheres to varying extents in the country. The roots can be found in patriarchal attitudes and stereotypes, as well as deeply entrenched systemic gaps.

Clearly at present the human rights in Ukraine are not respected as declared by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which guarantees the EU citizens’ rights. The Charter lays down the fundamental rights that are binding upon EU institutions and bodies. It also applies to national governments when they are implementing EU law.

Ukraine faces unprecedented challenges affecting gender equality and the enjoyment of equal rights and opportunites by women, particularly those facing multiple forms of discrimination. Structural discrimination of women persists in both the public and private spheres to varying extents in the country. The roots can be found in patriarchal attitudes and stereotypes, as well as deeply entrenched systemic gaps.

EU establishes Russia Crime Centre

Blog, Conflict, EU, Human rights, International, Politics, Russia

Today, the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine (ICPA) started its operations in the Hague, hosted by the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust). The newly established Centre will be key to investigate Russia’s crime of aggression against Ukraine and facilitate case building for future trials. It will provide a structure to support and enhance ongoing and future investigations into the crime of aggression and contribute to the exchange and analysis of evidence gathered since the start of the Russian aggression.

The Centre will begin operating as of today. Eurojust will work closely with the Commission and the members of the Joint Investigation Team to ensure that the Centre can provide the best possible support to national authorities.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is competent to prosecute the gravest international crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and the crime of aggression). However, at the moment, the ICC cannot prosecute Russia for the crime of aggression, since Russia is not a State party to the ICC. To close this gap, in November 2022 the Commission presented options to the Member States to guarantee that there is full accountability for all crimes committed in Ukraine. These options explored the possibility of establishing an accountability mechanism to allow the prosecution of the crime of aggression.

While discussions continue, in particular within the Core Group on the establishment of the Special Tribunal, it is crucial to ensure that the relevant evidence is properly secured, and that investigations can begin within the existing legal frameworks.

The evidence collected by the Centre could be used before other jurisdictions, including national and international courts, including a possible tribunal for the crime of aggression or the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes within its jurisdiction.

Prosecutors from the members of the Joint Investigation Centre will be relocated to Eurojust, where they can work together on a daily basis. The prosecutors will be supported by legal and analytical experts from Eurojust. Evidence identified can be stored securely in Eurojust’s Core International Crimes Evidence Database, established following the changes to the Eurojust Regulation based on the Commission’s proposal to amend Eurojust’s regulation.

EU regrets Russian LGBT law

Blog, Human rights

Brussels 24.11.2022 “The EU regrets further repressive measures adopted by the Russian State Duma, related to the so-called “foreign agents” legislation and the LGBTI legislation. The recently proposed amendments to the citizenship legislation are also deeply worrying” the European External Action service press person said.

“These legislative developments fuel homophobia and further deepen the harsh repression of any critical and alternative discourse in the context of Russia’s illegal, unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine, which the EU continues to condemn in the strongest possible terms”.

“The European Union stands in solidarity with Russian citizens who are prevented from exercising their human rights”.

USA-Russia: prisoners exchange talks

Blog, Human rights, International

Brussels 06.08.2022 Russia is ready to discuss the exchange of prisoners with the US, but only within the channel, negotiated by Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden. If the Americans resort to public diplomacy, its’ “their problem,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said to reporters Friday, August 5. (Image above: Viktor Bout)

The top diplomat said that Washington’s logic in the situation around House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan is “strange,” and noted that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken displayed no interest in contacts with his Russian counterpart during the ASEAN events in Phnom Penh.

“If the Americans once again decide to resort to public diplomacy and to make loud announcements that they plan to take some steps, then that is their business, and I would even say, their problem. The Americans often do not comply with agreements on a quiet professional work on this and many other topics.”

Russian prisoners of war killings

Blog, Europe, Human rights, International, Politics

Brussels 11.04.2022 The evidence has emerged revealing Ukrainian soldiers killings of captured and bound Russian prisoners of war near Bucha, the small town near Kyiv where presumed massacre of Ukrainian civilians happened according to President Zelensky and the international community accusing Russia of war crimes.

Kiev is plotting, with the West’ support, provocations with massacre of civilians in the self-proclaimed Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) to place the blame for it on the Russian army, Colonel Mikhail Mizintsev, chief of Russia’s National Defense Management Center, said on April 10.

“Official Kiev, with the support from several Western countries, continues to plan barbarous and ruthless actions with mass killings of civilians in the Lugansk People’s Republic to later accuse the Russian armed forces and LPR troops,” he said.

According to the Colonel, a provocation is planned in the Ragovka community in the Kiev region. The Ukrainian side, in his words, is plotting to shoot a fake video about searches of places of mass burials of civilians allegedly killed by Russian troops. “A team of Ukrainian forensic experts and police officers will be involved in the provocation to make it look more trustworthy,” he said.

“Reporters from foreign mass media outlets have arrived in the city of Kremennaya in the Severodonetsk district and have accommodated in the building of the local hospital. They are supposed to record the Ukrainian army’s provocation with the alleged selling of ambulance cars carrying patients by Russian troops,” he said.

Apart from that, he said that Ukrainian nationalists have mined reservoirs with chlorine at a water utility in the Popyasnaya district and plan to blow them up when forces of the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) approach the city.