Are Meghan Markle Channels Censoring your Free Speech?
The Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship report has a few objectives.
First, we look at Youtube as a whole entity, with all its parts. Second, the technology deployed by Google in lieu of “manpower”. Third, Youtube’s own limitations as it serves its members. Bots can’t calculate “nuances”. Bots can’t make judgement calls. Fourth, human intervention and peer review. What happens when there aren’t enough humans to go around? Finally, we look at the role of the Content Creators and the community at large. Whilst bots are programmed to “seek”, humans rely on their own biases, prejudices and attitudes.
Content Creators Exposed: Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
Leading the pack of “Narcissistic” content creators are SueMe (Sue Hamilton), Sue Smith and “Johny-come-lately” Trevor Coult. All three of these Youtube personalities have accused Meghan Markle of being a Narcissist, well, undoubtedly it takes one to know one.
Gabrielle Bourne Media has exposed all three to have Narcissist traits, but also hypocritical tendencies. It’s interesting that they claim to be proponents of “free speech” and “free expression”, yet suppress views that counter their own. We are not talking about trolls who only cause vitriol. We agree, you can block those. No, we are talking about commenters who question the accuracy of the content creators claims.
It has also come to our attention that both SueMe and Trevor Coult have fundraising schemes, where the beneficiaries are themselves. Whilst we are still investigating Trevor Coult, we have provided a detailed explanation why SueMe’s Legal Defence Fund is FULL of holes. In truth, SueMe’s fundraising falls under the headlines of “BLM fundraising scam” or the “New Jersey man who helped fabricate an intricate story about a homeless veteran helping his down-and-out girlfriend in order to collect thousands in GoFundMe donations”.
Trigger Warning: Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
Our Premise. Censorship does exist on Youtube. Meghan Markle Youtube channels are censoring your free speech. But the ones doing the censoring are the Content Creators of the channels you visit.
There is a lot to unpack because our Premise has two parts. First, we will show how your voice on Youtube can be suppressed. Second, we will demonstrate the tools used by these Content Creators to censor comments that they don’t like. This is a definite “Trigger warning” report. So read at your own risk.
Criteria: Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
Gabrielle Bourne Media, investigators Beth, Annie and Terry and the Defenders who worked on this report are not associated with or have personal history with any of the channels that were reviewed. We used the same standards of testing across all channels, using the same words, phrases and link variants in the body of the comments, without prejudice.
We tested eight channels, two of whom received the most complaints, but not all channels we tested received complaints. They were used as “control” subjects. Whilst two channels are written up in this report, one channel was not. We made an “executive” decision to exclude XYZ (aka the Guppy) from this report. This was done in order to protect the Content Creator from the Rabid Meghan Markle fans.
Editors Note (07-August-2022): ‘Triggered’ Trevor Coult
Gabrielle Bourne Media no longer recommends Trevor Coult channel on Youtube. Here is why. After our initial report on 1st July on Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship, we started to get an influx of comments about Coult’s channel. He had never deleted or shadow banned comments by Beth & Annie, our investigators, UNTIL now. Today, they corrected Coult on his assertion that Meghan Markle is 44 and not 41. Here is what Beth & Annie wrote.
Here is the result of the shadow ban test. We ran this test three times during different time periods. The results were the same. Remember, Youtube does not shadow ban. They leave the controls to the Content Creator to delete, block and hide users (shadow ban) from other commenters. Beth & Annie is visible to themselves, but invisible to other commenters on this video.
We tracked this response and it was shadow banned within two minutes by Coult. Beth & Annie tested this theory by responding to another commenter that Coult “shot down”. Our test channel located in the United States was “banned” by Coult. Trevor Coult claims to be a free speech advocate, but he is so triggered by comments that differ from his own. Additionally, he is spreading misinformation. We don’t know who is emailing him, as he never shares his “sources”. But Coult’s information is misleading.
Commenter, Valeri Forbes was not shadow banned, but notice that only one comment (1+) shows up in the results, not (2)+ Our comment to Valerie Forbes is invisible.
Thomas Markle Jr. Youtube channel (07-August-2022)
Trevor Coult fell ‘hook, line and sinker‘ for Thomas Markle Jr’s ‘jab’ at his sister, Meghan Markle, with a “Happy 41” birthday wish on his channel on 4th August. In a happy birthday sign he held up to his camera, Markle Jr wrote “dog” years and said she was almost “50 years old”. Coult probably didn’t bother to read the “description” for the channel or hear Markle Jr. say that it was a “parody, humour, entertainment purposes only” before holding up the sign.
On 18th September 2017, Thomas Markle Jr. gave an interview to DailyMailTV where he praised his sister, Meghan Markle. He also shared some photos, including this one. The description of the photo from this interview states that Thomas Jr. was a “teenager” when Meghan Markle arrived. Thomas Markle Jr. was born in 1966 and there is a 15 years age gap with sister Meghan Markle. Thomas will be 56 years old in September.
Samantha Markle – Trevor Coult claim (07-August-2022)
Trevor Coult claimed that Meghan is 44 years old and says there is a 13 year age gap between the half sisters. Samantha was born in November 1964. She will be 58 years old in 2022. Meghan Markle turned 41 on 4th August. The age gap is almost 17 years. Given the fact that Samantha is older than Thomas Jr by almost two years and this picture with baby Meghan Markle, very doubtful there is a 13 years age difference, as Coult claims.
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry – Marriage certificate (07-August-2022)
Why is Trevor Coult making up fantasies he cannot prove? The way he handles adversity and views that differ from his own is borderline NARC. He’s right and everyone else who disagrees with him is wrong, albeit we have proof and he doesn’t. In order for conspiracies to work, A LOT of people and government “officials” have to be involved.
Coult also blatantly LIED, stating “fast forward to the royal wedding…ON THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE…she has stated that she is born in 1982“. Where does it say that? Meghan Markle was 36 years old when she got married. It says so on the Marriage certificate.
Coult provides no links, videos, or evidentiary documents of his claims. He makes wild assertions without providing any proof. He suppresses views to correct his assertions, whilst lying that he believes in free speech. Integrity is a missing equation. Integrity doesn’t matter to Trevor Coult. His mask slipped and we have the proof.
fast forward to the royal wedding
on the marriage certificate to a British
prince she has stated that she is
born in 1982
Tom Bower Revenge – Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship (07-August-2022)
Even in Tom Bower’s book Revenge, Meghan Markle’s birth was confirmed to be 1981. Perhaps Coult was triggered by the truth. He told his viewers on 25th July that he “wasn’t going to read anymore”. He said he would stop at chapter 26 going on chapter 27.
The “lottery” claim made by Thomas Markle Jr. was also refuted by Thomas Markle Sr. in Tom Bower’s book. According to Thomas Markle Sr., his son, Thomas Jr. made up the claim during an interview. Our investigators tracked down the interview in Daily Mail on 27th November 2017, where Thomas Markle Jr. made the false lottery claim.
Trevor Coult Misinformation – Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship (07-August-2022)
Now let’s look at Trevor Coult’s 1st August 2022 video on Trisha Goddard. He wildly claimed that her show was cancelled because a guest on her show killed himself. Once again, Coult had to be corrected. Here is the article from Daily Mail on Jeremy Kyle’s guest Steve Dymond
Shadow banning (hiding) a commenter effects EVERY comment they EVER made. Thus, this comment from 1st August, which was visible to every other commenter is now invisible.
Trevor Coult “Defamation” – Trisha Goddard Transcript (07-August-2022)
Here is the transcript of exactly what Coult said on his video dated 1st August 2022. When it comes to a court of law, overusing allegedly does not help you if you are sued for defamation and it can be proven in this case.
let’s get her out in the open let’s get
her the open yes i’ve had a few messages
come in about the comments made by
trisha remember trisha trisha goddard
used to have her show called the trisha
show or whatever it was called many
years ago which was an end cancelled yes
it was it was cancelled people will
think i remember Trisha’s show yeah why
was it cancelled because after
oh mentioned a second name after a man
was on her show he actually killed
himself a couple of days later
resulting in the toxic atmosphere that
subjected him to made him take his life
allegedly let’s just point that out so
why is tricia why is she coming back
Editors Note (02-July-2022): Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
After receiving 56 enquires as of this report about the Guppy, here is our explanation. The Guppy was not on the “hit list”. We also do not intentionally expose people. Until, she is on a list, we will keep her profile hidden.
Even though the Guppy was excluded from this report, anomalies existed that made us question the Content Creator’s filters. Youtube removes the whole comments, but does not shadow ban it. Algorithms are deployed to detect threats, so benign letters such as “HH” may be misinterpreted as “Heil Hilter” by Youtube.
In our case, it was “Kn” for Knauf (Jason) and the word German-English in the same sentence. Youtube didn’t delete it. Timestamps are not considered links and allowed on Youtube. There were plenty of examples in the comments section of other videos. In addition, we used timestamps in other videos.
The Guppy shadow banned the Knauf comment. She later shadow banned our channel when she discovered we were filing a report. The irony with this attempt to suppress us was the fact that we were excluding her anyways. Perhaps she suppressed us because she didn’t like us correcting her “overuse” of the word “allegedly”? Who knows.
Our enquiry was a ploy. Of course we didn’t get responses, because no one else could see our comment. But within a few minutes of finding out we were doing a report, the Guppy shadow banned our channel.
Guppy’s ‘deliberate’ Shadow ban – Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
No results for Beth & Annie comments, even though there should be. We like to see not more than 2.5% filtering or 3% on the high end. The Guppy is filtering out almost 8% of her comments. Talk about trigger! Even though Youtube might filter out “malicious” comments, that still doesn’t account for the high number of filtering on this video.
Complaints: Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
The majority of complaints we received mainly concerned channels that produce Meghan Markle content. Go figure, right? To this date, the Meghan Markle blog is our more popular offering on the website. At some point, we will stop reporting on her, but for now, she is a relevant subject for what we do here at Gabrielle Bourne Media. We investigate frauds, scams and illiberal nonsense. We have been reporting on Meghan Markle since 2018.
Financial investigation: Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
We have over 20 years investigating financial frauds and scams, in addition to data security and identity theft. Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship is not the only thing we discovered during this “social experiment”. There was one outlier — The Legal Defence fund created by SueMe and promoted on her channel since March 24th. We will explain further.
You are a non-sequential entity
Youtube doesn’t care about the “peanut gallery”. Their main objective is to monitor “disruptions in the force” and their algorithms are “programmed” to detect threats, as per their guidelines. Legitimate human commenters are non-sequential entities. Therefore, Youtube puts the control into the hands of Content Creators and/or the moderators they select to keep their channel maintained.
Every channel has their own “policy” structure, sometimes based on biases and “triggers”. Content Creators may establish some housekeeping rules before they start, such as “Be kind in the comments”. Content Creators may also threaten to remove vitriol or what they see as “bullying”. Just be well informed of the type of channels you visit. Content Creators have the “power” to make you disappear or “shadow ban“. In other words, make you visible to yourself but invisible to others. We will show you the tools used and what this means to you.
Youtube does not Shadow ban
Not what you thought you would hear? Eh? Countering “popular” belief, Youtube does not shadow ban. Whaaaat? Whaaaat? Oprah said it first. Yes, according to Youtube they don’t shadow ban channels and comments for what it’s worth.
It’s a twofer: Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
We brought a wide net for this “fishing” expedition and guess what we caught? Two medium sized Meghan Markle channels with an interesting “connection” and one lonely Guppy. We used the Guppy as a “control” whilst we tried to manipulate the heck out of the Youtube algorithm. After we were done, we just threw the Guppy back from whence she came and reported on the two medium sized catches to file this report. So as Sue Smith says, “Let’s go”.
For the purpose of this report, we will use Sue Smith and SueMe as our “examples”. We will demonstrate how Content Creators can silence you. In other words, were you “silent” or were you “silenced“? Oprah doesn’t have anything on us. We push hard to find out the truth and the dirty little secrets these Content Creators don’t want to you to know. We will show you how it can be done. The tools used to achieve this, and what you can do to fight back.
Spammers and Trolls
The caveat here is that if you are a spammer or trolling, tread carefully. There is no place for vitriol or bullying, excessive adverts and illiberal nonsense. If you are a bot, you don’t belong here anyways, so please go back to your human master. However, if you are a legitimate human commenter promoting civil discourse, your rights may be violated through intentional censorship. This should not be allowed.
Gabrielle Bourne Media believes that “we should be free to disagree“. Scotland’s free speech advocates built a whole campaign around it. If Content Creators are so triggered by comments or enquiries they don’t like, perhaps they shouldn’t be on a public forum.
SueMe Genesis: Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
You have to wonder why Meghan Markle channels are popping up faster than a Starbucks on every corner. For instance, SueMe only started reporting on Meghan Markle in April 2021. She introduced her channel in May 2019.
SueMe is a crafty woman who is also on Etsy. She has a listed course on ceramic, porcelain and pottery repair. Her first video about the Royals didn’t drop until April 22, 2021, with The Strange Life of Prince Philip. She followed it up a week later with her first video on Harry and Meghan. That video exceeded 176K views, as of this report.
She started with Thursday programmes, for “our own amusement“. Then expanded to Sundays. Her channel actually did better on the viewing scale when her subject was Meghan Markle. It’s also important to note that in the description box SueMe used to include that she read “all” her comments. It’s a claim she doesn’t make now. We will show you why.
SueMe, Christopher Bouzy and Google
On January 23, 2022, SueMe dropped her Christopher Bouzy video. We heard the rumours that Bouzy and Bot Sentinel were trying to shut down all the Meghan Markle Youtube channels. They had a hit list, as if that would be very effective.
Why would Google pull channels without any concrete proof? Criticism is not the same as blatant lies and intentional misinformation in lieu of facts. One has to prove malice and intent to mislead.
Youtube, owned by Google with shares owned by Gabrielle Bourne Media’s VC division and others is a lucrative investment. Bouzy needs to learn the first rule of investment — “Don’t Lose Money”, famously coined by the Oracle himself, Mr. Warren Buffett. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand investing.
These channels are money makers and draw in the viewership. So why would Google get rid of a steady revenue stream when these channels can pull in the advertisers?
For this reason, Google now runs ads on channels that don’t qualify to be monetised, because tech companies are obsessed with adverts, that bring in the money, and that’s how they keep their shareholders happy. Gabrielle Bourne Media believes there is nothing wrong with being financially solvent and debt poor (little to no debt).
SueMe’s Legal Defence Fund and Yankee Wally
SueMe’s description box on her videos is an evolution of where the channel is going. On March 20th, she added the Bonfire link to her channel. She followed that up with the Legal Defence Fund link on March 24th. The timing of these two “money links” are interesting. They coincide with a “troll” account losing her Youtube channel.
On March 20th, the same day the Bonfire link was added to her channel, SueMe stated that Yankee Wally’s Youtube channel was shut down “over the weekend”. Whilst SueMe claimed she didn’t know Yankee, she erroneously provided an explanation of trolling and tried to define a troll.
SueMe explains Trolling
The way SueMe explained it on her video went something like this. If you say, “I think Joe Biden is a moron” (7:54) from your own corner and “on your own dime”, you are exercising your free speech. SueMe claimed that wasn’t trolling. But if you “take the fight” to Joe Biden on his Twitter or Facebook account (as an example) and say “Joe Biden I think you are an idiot” (8:30). SueMe said that was trolling.
Ah no, it’s not. The best explanation we found was from the Urban dictionary.
Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is the deliberate act, (by a Troll – noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argumentby Drog65 January 3, 2014
SueMe’s Legal Defence Fund and Bonfire
SueMe added the Legal Defence Fund link to her description box on March 24th, almost one week after Yankee Wally lost her channel. Bonfire popped up a week before.
Based on over 20 years of financial investigative reporting, the Legal Defence Fund has the hallmarks of a “shady” fundraising scheme. We already did a deep dive on Black Lives Matter Inc. (BLM Inc) and filed our report on February 18, 2021. Susan Woods, another investigator, did an even deeper dive. Her videos on the chapters will show their fundraising schemes.
One only has to “Google” Patrisse Cullors to know how the monies raised through BLM Inc. wasn’t going towards improvements to black neighbourhoods or that families of the victims used to raise the monies didn’t benefit from the millions. There was no transparency that we can gather.
SueMe’s the Legal Defence Fund is Nebulous
Here is the description on SueMe aka Sue Hamilton’s Spotfund account.
We are raising money to assist with legal fees in the event that a member of our community nees to defend themselves from criminal or civil prosecution resulting from statements or posts critical of the Duke and/or Duchess of Sussex.Spotfund – Fundraising for Sue Hamilton
When was the last time you heard of a Content Creator of a Meghan Markle Youtube channel going to court because they were “prosecuted resulting from statements or posts” critical of Meghan Markle and her husband? If you said, “never” you are right! It hasn’t happened. When it does occur, the defendant could raise their own monies through crowd funding.
The timing of this fundraising campaign, coupled with SueMe’s attempt to explain how the money was going to be used or “donated” is nebulous.
SueMe’s Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
Gabrielle Bourne Media deploys various tools to search Youtube and other social media sites. In addition, we get screen grabs of comments we believe could be deleted. In this instance, we were correct. SueMe deleted this comment below. Notice the comments count 343. It is significant.
This comment was deleted by SueMe. There is also no record of it in our data TEST.
SueMe did not delete the following comment, after we called her out on her “delete trigger“. We posted this after we discovered that SueMe had deleted our previous enquiry about her Legal Defence Fund. This is the same video, with the comments count 394. We went back and checked a few days later and the comment remained intact. SueMe never responded to our enquiry. We haven’t heard back from Sue Smith either. She promoted SueMe’s t-shirt sales on her channel.
SueMe’s “claimed” objectives: Legal Defence Fund
On her June 26th video, SueMe tried to reassure her viewers that she wasn’t “planning on running off to Tijuana with that ten thousand dollars” (10:32-38). Her explanation was over 10 minutes long. She kept repeating herself and also changed the story of how the funds would be distributed. She brought up donation as a possibility. This was in direct conflict with her description on her Spotfund account that claimed that the funds were to be used for “legal defence“.
Whilst Spotfund allows campaigners to change the fund’s objectives, it’s not clear when she planned to tell her donors that the monies could be donated, instead. SueMe boasted she raised OVER $10,000.
SueMe also said the money is with the “organisations”. “I have not even taken possession of the donated money it is all still in the hands of the organizations that collected it either through the donations or through the sale of the t-shirts they’ve still got the money” (3:40-57). THEY do? Then why is SueMe aka Sue Hamilton the sole account holder at Spotfund and Bonfire? It may be with the organisations, but SueMe is the beneficiary.
SueMe explains away her fundraising – But there is no evidence
SueMe admitted she opened up a “savings” account with $200, of her own “personal donation to the fund” (4:01) but has yet to transfer any of the monies collected to the savings account she opened. The donations she spoke of were from t-shirt sales and monies donated to The Legal Defence Fund.
There is a problem with this “absolute statement” because there is no evidence that she even donated to the fund. Her statement regarding the $200 does not refer to t-shirt sales but to the fund. It is also doubtful that she would buy $200 worth of her own t-shirts. She also doesn’t use the word, “bought” or “purchased”, she used the phrase “donation to the fund“. There is only one fund she set up. That is the Legal Defence Fund on Spotfund.
On Bonfire, you raise monies through t-shirt sales. On Spotfund you “donate” money to the fund. We did a deep dive of ALL 151 donors, that totaled $7,108 as of this report and SueMe aka Sue Hamilton does not show up on that list. Additionally, there is no record of a $200 donation made by anyone.
Anonymous donations were listed, but not equated to $200. In addition, anonymous donors do not make blanketed public announcements about their donations. That’s why they are “anonymous”.
SueMe, Spotfund and the IRS
Did you know that crowdfunding is not considered a “donation” if you give to profit organisations and individuals? Imagine the shock of giving to Black Lives Matter Inc only to find out they weren’t even a 501(c) when you gave. Black Lives Matter Inc only received their nonprofit status from the IRS in December 2020.
Now imagine giving to the Legal Defence Fund. What actually is its purpose anyways? If you live in the United States, the IRS has rules you have to abide by. The IRS does not consider “donations” as gifts, if the organiser is also the beneficiary of those donations. In addition, since SueMe is not a 501(c), donors cannot write-off their donations on their taxes in the United States.
Sue Hamilton (aka SueMe) has to pay taxes on distributions over $600. Spotfund will also provide Hamilton with a form 1099-K. The IRS has records of all transactions. So, SueMe should forget about opening up a bank account with $200 that don’t appear anywhere on her donor list.
For calendar years beginning after December 31, 2021, the threshold is lowered and is met if, during a calendar year, the total of all payments distributed to a person exceeds $600 in gross payments, regardless of the number of transactions or donations.Internal Revenue Service
The Genesis: Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
In February 2021, Gabrielle Bourne Media received our first wave of complaints about Youtube, in particular channels that take a “critical” spin on Meghan Markle.
Our readers were comfortable “off loading” their grievances to us, because we are critical of Meghan Markle too. Those complaining, 89% dealt with “misinformation”. At that time, we only observed, with occasional enquiries to the Content Creator to provide proof on their “findings”. Sue Smith was one of them. She remained on our radar.
When we did a further deep dive in March 2022, we flagged another Youtube channel, SueMe. And guess who was back? Sue Smith, because in 2022 it was about suppression and censorship.
The Evidentiary standards revealed
The link between Sue Smith and SueMe is referential and circumstantial. Sue Smith did promote SueMe’s t-shirt sales on her channel on March 22nd. This is fact, not conjecture. But did SueMe and Sue Smith try to censor and suppress free speech on their channels?
We spent the month of June deep diving into this quandary. We looked at the tools available to Content Creators on Youtube. Read the Youtube guidelines and spoke with other Content Creators and commenters. The visual evidence will show a possible connection. We also obtained the transcripts for their videos, or as we say, “in their own words”.
Here’s the “dirty little secret”. Content Creators on Youtube can make you disappear. Use an Ad blocker
Meghan Markle Youtubers you should follow
Our investigation also led to relevant Meghan Markle channels who don’t censor. They provide an honest review of their subject matters, albeit some pushed “conspiracy theories”.
Recommended Youtube channels
- Baggage Claim. Gabrielle Bourne Media pick. This channel does not ramble. The argument supports the premise. The presentation is structured. The subject matters are varied and includes Meghan Markle, Amber Heard, Johny Depp and Jordan Peterson, so name some featured. Disclaimer: No complaints. No Deep dive on this channel.
- Royal News Network. Brittany is a Royalist in the true sense of the word. She not only covers UK Royalty but European, as well. She has an in depth knowledge about fashion and who’s who in the pecking order. Disclaimer: No complaints. Deep dive on this channel.
- Tea & Therapy UK. Emz partners up with Trev for their live feeds. Albeit we received complaints about issues on her channel, she was forthcoming and responsive whenever we had questions. Despite these quirks, and we are not ignoring them, Emz is likeable and honest, in our opinion. She gets points for her professionalism and response time. Furthermore, our investigations concluded that there was no censorship. Gabrielle Bourne Media does not recognise malicious complaints. Disclaimer: Deep dive on this channel.
- The Body Language Guy. Personable Jesus is entertaining! He’s a sleuth just like Hercule Poirot. He may take a long time to set up his live feeds, which can get very boring. But he won’t suppress your comments, even when you whinge. Thank you from B & A. Disclaimer: No complaints. Deep dive on this channel.
- Neil Sean. Say what you want about him, but jovial Sean Neil is a gentleman. He covers royal news and entertainment. Is he always accurate? No. He contradicted himself on whether Boris Johnson was booed or not. In one video he said he wasn’t. in the other video, he said he was. What Sean needs is a dedicated fact checker to ensure his videos deliver consistent messaging. Disclaimer: No complaints. Deep dive on this channel.
- PDina. In a recent visit to the UK, PDina was confronted by a woman who interjected her opinions during a taping. The subject of race was brought up and PDina shut the woman down (24:23). This video is too good, not to watch. The link is provided. PDina’s channel is full of interesting interviews, insight and commentary. Disclaimer: No complaints. No deep dive on this channel.
- ExposingSMG. Gabrielle Bourne Media recommends this channel. The format is clean. The presentation is not wordy, with voice over and cut footage mixed in. If you don’t have a lot of time, this channel is for you. Disclaimer: No complaints. No deep dive on this channel.
Editor’s Note (03-July-2022): Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
Gabrielle Bourne Media found no evidence of censorship on the ‘Tea & Therapy uk’ channel, after our investigation.
Editorial note (02-July-2022) – Gabrielle Bourne Media doubts some of the complaints received for this channel, and here is why. We re-ran the test for this particular video, and the comments data lined up. The 207 comments loaded, equals 207 that shows up on this video.
Disclaimer, not all comments will equal the test results. There are still factors related to Youtube algorithm and the Content Creator’s filters that will skew the data. However, Youtube algorithm resets the value, as if nothing occurred. There is no evidence this was shadow ban.
Illiberal Nonsense: Meghan Markle Youtube Misinformation
Our first “crack” with Sue Smith was on April 19, 2021. We made an enquiry on Sue Smith”s video. She never responded. The video is still up on her channel as of this report. The Body Language Guy had also debunked this on his channel. Unfortunately, the not so well-informed viewers will believe Sue Smith’s “absolute statements“.
The full story can be found in The Sun article below.
Trooping the Colour 2018: Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank
Here is the misinformation that Sue Smith pedaled, without fact-checking.
Sue Smith stated that Meghan Markle was “snickering” when Field Marshall Gutherie fell from his horse. She stated Meghan’s “pink dress” could be seen on the balcony. But the image is too grainy. Sue Smith’s claim contradicts The Sun, who wrote the Duchess of Cambridge suppressed a cough and Meghan was “hiding a naughty smile”. In lieu of “evidence”, Sue Smith went with her bias.
Transcript snippet: balcony scene
Kate is horrified by what she sees and
Megan is snickering
now if that doesn’t speak volumes then i
don’t know what does
Sue Smith referenced that “everything” in her video is “pulled from the public domain”. She goes on to state that she is using them “under the fair use, fair dealings guidelines”. She admits that “everything” she says is her “opinion” and invites the viewers to look into “these information for yourselves”. However, she ends with, “But, I’m pretty sure I’m right”.
Anyone can pull from the “public domain” but it doesn’t mean it’s true. Some Youtube channels hide behind claims of “fair use” and “fair dealings” guidelines, in addition to a series of disclaimers. But It’s just more legal “word salad”. It’s the equivalent to inserting the word “allegedly” before almost every claim you make, in the hopes you won’t get sued.
A well sourced report carries more weight than a defamation/libel/slander “stuffing” in hopes that you are safe.
Illiberal Nonsense: Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
At the beginning of this report, we cited Sue Smith and SueMe. Now, we present what we found.
Meghan Markle Youtube censorship is real. Both Sue Smith and SueMe are intentionally suppressing and censoring viewers. Sue Smith even admitted to it in her latest video, Two days worth of news on June 27th. Apparently Sue Smith was so “triggered” by this commenter, hayswhite, she told ALL her viewers that this person was banned from her channel.
She compared this commenter to Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, an infamous UK race hustler.
You could almost hear the steam coming out of Sue Smith’s nostrils. This commenter did not call her a racist. Maybe this person actually lives in a town with four abortion clinics. Maybe this commenter lives in a black town. Sue Smith will never know because instead of having a civil discourse with this person, she decides to use her censor button to ban him. Sure, that is the answer Sue. Just ban everyone who doesn’t agree with you.
Sue Smith either SHADOW BANNED or deleted hayswhite from her channel. They don’t show up on the TEST.
The TEST pulled up three comments in the search “hayswhite”. This was the best comment. It was constructive and logical.
Transcript Snippet: hayswhite
next up this particular follower is um
hayes white who tried to turn it into a
we have four abortion clinics we’re
destroying the lives of black babies
I just unsubscribed from your channel
why is it when people unsubscribe they
have to announce it why can’t you just
back babies matter too
when did i say that black babies didn’t
matter i will not tolerate anybody
accusing me of racism because Meghan
Markle didn’t make a statement on
women’s rights since she claims to be a
feminist so haze white don’t worry about
ever coming back because you’re banned
you are a shola wannabe a nadine white
wannabe and i won’t tolerate that on my
Sue Smith needs a lesson in Civility
Here is how we handled a rather “tricky” situation with a very passionate commenter who called all of us liars. She is pro Meghan Markle, and we have nothing against that. Our objective was to have a civil discourse. Yes, there are trolls who only want to pick up a fight with their illiberal nonsense, but the majority just want to get their points across.
We were on SueMe’s channel to see if our comments were being suppressed within another commenter’s reply field. All the comments were posted to Buffa55 in SueMe’s June 19th video on bullying.
SueMe’s Collection Folder and blocking
The comments field on Youtube is sometimes more interesting than the video. When comments vanish or are shadow banned, commenters start filing complaints. Unfortunately wrong conclusions can be draw. It’s important to look at every case uniquely and without prejudice, instead of blaming everything on Youtube.
Most likely the word “bully” was the trigger to get this comment shadow banned. But it is doubtful that Youtube’s algorithm is going care about all the comments with that particular word. Youtube algorithm looks for patterns, not specific individual comments. The Content Creators have full access to a host of tools they use, including the block feature.
When comments are held for review, you can still see them, but no one else can.
Beth & Annie Original: Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
SueMe’s Shadow ban version: “bully”
SueMe Vanishing Act
The comments and responses are out of sequence. Mango’s reply, which we posted at the start of this segment is also missing, along with our original comment at the start of the thread. This is not a Youtube algorithm issue. SueMe deleted Mango Juice’s reply that “the liars are the RF“. We know she deletes comments. She deleted our first Spotfund enquiry. The Youtube video we posted to this report will explain more on replying, filtering and moderating.
Whenever you see comments out of sequence, or broken threads, be suspect.
Sue Smith’s complete shadow ban
Sue Smith on the other hand completely shadow banned us. Our comments, regardless of the content, and whether it was a reply to another commenter, did not matter. We were completely invisible to other visitors to her channel.
Harry’s mental health and my family: Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
This is what you look like when you are shadow banned by the Content Creator — INVISIBLE
Two days worth of news: Meghan Markle Youtube Censorship
Sue Smith’s Genesis
We don’t believe that Sue Smith started out wanting to shadow ban us.
It probably started with our enquiry into SueMe’s fundraising campaign on Spotfund. We asked Sue Smith to clarify SueMe’s fundraising for her legal defence fund.
On her fundraising page, SueMe writes that the monies will go towards members to help them “defend themselves from criminal or prosecution resulting from statements or posts critical of the Duke and/or Duchess of Sussex”. But in her video on June 26th, she kept changing the narrative.
We can see ourselves…
But no one else can…
We received an alert that Sue Smith had subscribed to our channel. She must have quickly realised we were compiling a report (this report), because she unsubscribed. We did not hide what we were doing. It’s posted to the ABOUT page on our Social Experiment Youtube channel.
Youtube Content Creators with God Complex
Youtubers erroneously believe that Youtube is “intentionally” shadow banning and deleting their comments. But our investigation found that Content Creators with God Complex are to blame.
Youtube Content Creators who don’t censor
Youtube does not “shadow ban” channels and likely comments. But our test show that certain words and phrases can be filtered out and held for review in the Content Creator’s folder. Fortunately for FREE SPEECH, you have channels like The Body Language Guy, Neil Sean, Tea & Therapy UK, Royal News Network , PDina and even Lady C. These channels are not triggered to delete or shadow ban you, unless you are a bot, troll or a bully.
Youtube does not shadow ban channels
There is so much misinformation on what Youtube does. They actually do very little. They put the control in the hands of the Content Creators, who then have the power to ban, delete, filter out “trigger” words or APPROVE and fast track friends and family to the commenting field.
Sure Youtube has a system to detect threats, but how often have you seen inappropriate comments or videos that the bots somehow missed screening? Let’s face it, some Youtube thumbnails are clickbait. Many don’t reflect the content they promote. Some are downright gross. Yet somehow they all missed the Youtube filtering process?
In her video,Two days worth of news, this is how Sue Smith responded to a commenter. Sue Smith should apply the Meghan Markle Youtube censorship to her own channel. It is rife with misinformation and vulgarity.
SueMe channels Ellen DeGeneres: TeddyFeed article
SueMe is interested in the Meghan Markle “fake baby” conspiracy theories. We think she was channelling Ellen DeGeneres, when she stated, “People have questions and the idea of trying to silence this I think is just so wrong” (42:41-48). Sure, just the way SueMe was trying to silence us by deleting our first enquiry into her funding practises. Or even removing Mango’s comment that the “the liars are the RF”. Mango established a Premise. Now they have to go prove it.
Transcript Snippet: “Silent” or “Silenced”
and the fact is of course you know these people are going to call anything that comes out uh in any way
uh unflattering to you know our favourite duchess and her
sock puppet you know they’re going to call it conspiracies misinformation disinformation etc
no i think what we have here is a complete
explanation fairly presented for why
people have questions and the idea of trying to silence this i
think is just so wrong i can understand some people
standing up against the free dissemination of information
but when Newsweek does it whoa something’s wrong with this picture
all right that’s what i have for you you’ve got the article uh the by the way
both articles are linked in the notes so go ahead check them out for yourself
SueMe’s ‘Narc’ Reaction – The Spectator article
SueMe incorrectly credited the article to Andrew Neil. The author is Gilbert T Sewell. We sent her the link. She even said that “someone” sent her the link in a follow up video. But instead of providing the same link to her viewers, she copied and pasted the whole article to the end of her video, in a total NARC move.
SueMe reports on Meghan Markle, but she acts more like Markle when giving no credit or recognition of effort by others. Instead of adding the link we provided to her in the description box for the video, she gave her viewers a link that went no where, and to the Spectator’s paywall, instead, in a classic SueMe “Markle move”.
Transcript Snippet: The Spectator article
there is another link i put in there and this link refers
to an article written by Andrew Neil and it was originally
um mentioned in an article in the independent and that link if you click on it will
lead you nowhere apparently they have pulled the story offline
i’m throwing that link in just so you can see this really is happening
that story uh by Andrew Neil was criticising nutmeg for using Uvalde
as a photo op so get out there read this stuff click on
these articles take a look because we shouldn’t have our information
filtered by nutmeg’s pr team…
How to Protect your Liberties
Gabrielle Bourne Media believes that free speech matters. It is especially true on a public forum like Youtube. So what can you do about it? Expose the channels suppressing your free speech. The only way you can protect your liberties is to fight for it. Don’t let small minded “non-sequential” Content Creators with God complex take that away. You should be “free to disagree”.
We encourage civil discourse at Gabrielle Bourne Media, where our teams debate it out in a public arena. Team members then vote on who gave the most constructive argument.
Youtube channels have access to Youtube Studios whether you have video uploads or not. Google makes it mandatory to create a channel before you can comment on any videos. We used Gabrielle Bourne Media’s test channel located in the United States for this investigative research. Every team has their own “test channel” including in the UK, Australia and Sweden. Once our investigation concludes and the report filed, it stays dormant until the next assignment.
You can access the Studio by clicking customize (customise) channel.