Learn more about RevenueStripe...

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.


According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.

According to YouTube, videos that bring attention to the ridiculous statements made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The video streaming service has “demonetized” a series of videos published by The American Mirror that many Americans likely find ridiculous.

One, published on September 28, featured Pelosi muttering “oh God” when she was asked a question about gun legislation during her weekly press conference.

Another one showed Waters ranting about Donald Trump and pushing for his impeachment during remarks at the funeral of comedian Dick Gregory.

Pelosi’s video received over 273,000 views, while Waters’s got over 102,000.

Each time, YouTube “demonetized” the video, claiming the content was “not suitable for most advertisers.”

The YouTube site lists several examples of content that violates its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines. Here are some that may apply:

Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.

Are Pelosi’s and Waters’s words controversial in the eyes of YouTube?

Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.

Are their words “hateful” in the eyes of YouTube?

Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.

Do Pelosi and Waters use “gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning” words about Donald Trump, according to YouTube? And if so, what does that say about them as American elected officials?

To be clear, there is no commentary edited into the videos. There is no ridicule. The clips are just the Democrats’ words for all the world to see.

You be the judge:

In fact, many Democrats would likely cheer the statements made in the videos.

In June, YouTube punished The American Mirror when it posted a video of Hillary Clinton in which she called for “understanding” after radical Islamic terrorists carried out an attack on London.

That was deemed “not suitable,” as well.

YouTube provides an opportunity for a “manual review” of the content, “if you think our automated system got this wrong.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

We're Sorry. No posts found.