Tag: YouTube

YouTube: my channel arrest for “intentions”?!

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

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: Am I worse than Ousama?!

Blog, freedom of speech

21.09.2026 Brussels Here is my letter to YouTube “support”. Between us: Am I worse than Ousama?.. He is on the platform, collecting millions views, while I am banned…

Dear YouTube team,
You wrote: “We have reviewed the video and determined that it is in violation of our Community Guidelines. Contents intended to praise, promote, or aid violent criminal organizations are not allowed on YouTube. These organizations are not allowed to use YouTube for any purpose, including recruitment.
“Upon review, we have removed the video per our violent extremist or criminal organizations policy as it contains content produced by or glorifying violent criminal or terrorist organizations”. (My video with an annoucement of death in a plane crash of PMC Wagner boss #Prigozhin)

However, contrary to your statement, a great deal of content produced by criminal or terrorist organizations is on display on YouTube, starting with the terrorist number one Osama bin Laden. You have the whole collection of his interviews, and speeches:.

1. Osama Bin Laden was a violent terrorist and founder of al Qaeda who killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children before his death in 2011. He was al-Qa’ida’s founder and only amir, or commander in history. Al-Qaeda is a transnational Sunni Islamist terrorist organization (source CIA).

8.2M views 15 years ago

2. Osama Bin Laden direct speeches:

13M views 4 years ago

3.Osama bin Laden interview:

292K views 10 years ago

4. Osama bin Laden interview:

12M views 14 years ago

5. Yahya Sinwar was a vicious and unrepentant terrorist responsible for the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust (source CIA)

6. Sinwar’s Old Press Conference Mocking Israeli Threat To Kill Him Goes Viral |
Hamas, Gaza, Iran, IDF

753K views 1 year ago

7. Yahya Sinwar: if you wish you can buy Super Thanks (!) for him:

8. Yahya Sinwar Death LIVE News |
Hamas Chief Sinwar’s Last Fiery Speech Before IDF ‘Killing’ | Israel

16K views Streamed 1 year ago

9. Yahya Sinwar speech in Gaza 2021

13M (!)

10. Sinwar did ‘not shy away’ from tough questions: Journalist

370K views

… and the list continues.
CONCLUSION: YouTube as the other major mass media sources regularly quotes 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, or plane crash 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.
The quote from PMC Wagner about the death of their leader was done within the existing legal framework.
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.

The second element mentioned in your verdict is the “glorification”. It is a very serious accusation, and as a professional in journalism I need to know the answer to that question:
Please, indicate what words in my video made you come to this conclusion?
Waiting for your answer,
AvD

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)

YouTube blocked my channel again!

Blog, World

Brussels 20.09.2026 I profoundly disagree with the discriminatory measure against my YouTube channel. “We have reviewed your content carefully, and have confirmed that it violates our violent criminal organisations policy” the second YouTube message reads.

Meanwhile all the other videos on the same subject about Wagner group boss Prigozhin assassination enjoy visibility on YouTube!
Moreover they collect views, many have open comments, and YouTube doesn’t consider them “unsafe”, or violating “violent criminal organisations policy”.

Officially YouTube company declares the same “Community rules” for everyone, and equality as a core value. However the punishment of my channel doesn’t correlate with these declarations.

Here are the similar content videos, but unlike mine announcement of Prigozhin death,
they have the graphic of his plane crash fire. I didn’t have it, I had only the verbal confirmation.

All the TV Channel below enjoy visibility on YouTube, and they are not considered ‘unsafe”:

1. WSJ
Prigozhin Is Dead: A Timeline of the Wagner Boss Since His Failed Mutiny | WSJ

NB! With the scenes of the plane crash.
493,575 views Aug 24, 2023
2.
WSJ
Yevgeny Prigozhin Dead: Wagner-Owned Plane Crashes in Tver, Russia

1M views 3 years ago
3.
Channel 4 News
Yevgeny Prigozhin: Wagner boss ‘killed in deadly plane crash’ in Russia

336K views 3 years ago Aug 23, 2023
4.
Al Jazeera
The Prigozhin plane crash — Putin’s revenge?

271,889 views Aug 25, 2023
5.
Sky News
Wagner leader Prigozhin confirmed dead in what is ‘almost certainly an assassination’

65K views 3 years ago
6.
BBC News
Dead in plane crash: Yevgeny Prigozhin who led mutiny against Putin

1.5M views 3 years ago
7.
Wion Wideangle
Yevgeny Prigozhin: Downfall. Disaster. Death

313K views 3 years ago WION Wideangle
8.
FRANCE 24
In-depth analysis: Wagner chief Prigozhin presumed to have died in a plane crash

40K views 3 years ago
9.
ABC News
Theories circling about Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin’s plane crash

108,818 views Aug 24, 2023

… and multiple shorts, podcasts, and other types of information formats on Prigozhin plane crash are on YouTube display, without being “unsafe” for the audiences, although they are devoted to exactly the same subject.
As you see all the other content creators with the similar subject are not regarded as “unsafe”.

Is YouTube Neal Mohan (pictured) serious about equality for all YouTube creators?..

YouTube closed my channel again!

Blog, International, Lifestyle, World

Washington DC July 03.2026 Here is the answer from the YouTube censors:
“Hi Anna Van Densky,
We have reviewed your appeal for the following:
Video: 02.07.2026 NYC: Сам черт не брат! (To take on the devil himself)
We have reviewed your content carefully and confirmed that it violates our harmful and dangerous policy. We know that this is probably disappointing news but it’s our job to make sure that YouTube is a safe place for all.
“How this impacts your content
We won’t be putting your content back up on YouTube.
If your appeal was for a warning, you will not be given another warning in the future.
If your appeal was for a strike, the strike will remain on your channel.
You can find more information about warnings and strikes in the YouTube Help Centre.
Learn about your resolution options.Thanks,
The YouTube team”

The video which war removed was devoted to Angelina and Ivan stunt on July 1, 2026.

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