YouTube has rolled out a pilot program that grants previously banned content creators the opportunity to create a new channel despite past violations, but there is some doubt among conservatives as to whether the video platform has moved past its censorship days.
On Oct. 9, YouTube announced the “second chance” program as an avenue for certain creators to return to the platform if their channels were terminated. While most can apply for the program, YouTube reserves the right to bar access for people accused of copyright infringement or those who previously violated its Creator Responsibility policies.
The Google-owned subsidiary considers several factors when reviewing applications, including whether a creator’s on or off-platform activity harmed or continues to harm the YouTube community. Examples of this prohibited behavior include actions intending to cause malicious harm to others or participating in abuse, violence, or fraudulent or deceptive behavior that causes harm in real life.
Among the content policies that YouTube says it isn’t strictly enforcing anymore are guidelines related to misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election, two topics that conservatives have vigorously discussed online in the past five years.
A lawyer for Google’s parent company, Alphabet, revealed in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee last month that YouTube moved away from those specific violations to bolster free expression, while also admitting that the Biden administration pressured the company to remove content that did not contravene the platform’s policies at the time.
YouTube ultimately agreed to regulate some heterodox content but eventually sunsetted the policies regarding questions about pandemic response efforts or possible election fraud, although it does enforce medical and election misinformation policies if such content poses a serious risk of egregious harm.
One YouTuber still banned is Lauren Chen, whose channels were removed last fall after her company, TENET Media, became caught up in a Biden-era investigation. At the heart of the inquiry was an indictment of two employees for the Russian state-controlled news outlet RT, who allegedly funneled $10 million to TENET so that Russian propaganda could be disseminated by the media company’s right-wing talent.
While TENET was implicated in the scheme without being named in the indictment, no formal charges were brought against the company or its founders, and the case was quietly closed. But the damage was already done: TENET was forced to shut down, and two of Chen’s personal YouTube channels were deleted.
She makes the case that her channels should be reinstated, decrying the “totally unjust” ban.
“This whole ordeal has frankly been a gross violation of free speech, due process, and the presumption of innocence. The content on TENET’s channel represented the free speech of Americans, as the creators we worked with will attest to,” Chen told the Washington Examiner.
“The fact that YouTube would take our largely pro-Trump videos down during election season because of the word of an adversarial attorney general is dystopian,” she said, referring to Merrick Garland.
Chen revealed she tried applying for YouTube’s second-chance program but was told she was ineligible for an undisclosed reason.
Under the pilot program, creators are only eligible to request a new channel one year after their termination date. Chen’s channels were taken down over one year ago.
The Canadian conservative commentator was accused of violating YouTube’s misinformation policy on political influence operations at the time. While emphasizing that not all creators are eligible for a comeback, YouTube didn’t directly answer whether that policy is classified as a severe or persistent violation of the platform’s Community Guidelines or Terms of Service.
YouTube said multiple channels operated by Chen and TENET were terminated after a careful review in September 2024.
Other right-wing figures, namely Alex Jones and Nick Fuentes, remain banned. The two made headlines last month when their return to YouTube was swiftly cut short.
A YouTube spokesperson said they went outside the established application process to start new channels, which was why their accounts were terminated.
The deplatforming of Jones and Fuentes drew constructive criticism from Ohio GOP gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who argued censorship is “antithetical” to American values and will only breed “frustration” and “mistrust” in today’s divided culture.
When asked if she thinks the pilot program is a sign of lasting change at YouTube, Chen said she doesn’t believe so.
“For the time being, it sadly seems like this is just lip service to free speech without any meaningful changes,” she argued. “YouTube obviously senses that the political and cultural climate is changing, though, and if they don’t stop the obvious political weaponization of their Terms of Service, it’s just going to drive more creators and viewers to platforms like X and Rumble.”
While skeptical of YouTube’s renewed commitment to free speech, she did credit the company for reinstating Sneako recently, following a three-year ban over COVID-19 rules. Sneako’s old channel was restored, meaning he didn’t have to start from scratch like other creators who went through the second chance program.
Having taken a yearlong hiatus from the public spotlight, Chen started posting again on her social media platforms last month but remains inactive on YouTube.
A spokesperson for YouTube maintained the platform equally applies its policies to everyone and consistently enforces them, regardless of one’s political affiliation. The spokesperson added the company appreciates the public’s patience as it continues rolling out the second chance program to eligible creators in the coming months.
Another streamer who doubts YouTube’s supposed retreat from anti-conservative bias is Tim “Baked Alaska” Gionet. He was banned in October 2020 when he reportedly harassed and insulted people wearing face masks inside private businesses without wearing a mask himself. He insisted there was no “hate speech” in the incident that led to his ban.
“I’ve been asking questions on X about why they aren’t allowing me to have my original channel back, which had around 100,000 subs, and instead are making me start completely from scratch. They said it’s because my channel was banned for hate speech, which is the first time I’ve even heard that reason,” Gionet told the Washington Examiner. “We know that is demonstrably false because we’ve seen multiple huge channels such as Sneako, Gavin McInnes, Andy Warski, and more be fully restored for the same violation.”
Although initially excited about the pilot program, he is concerned about its mistreatment now that YouTube threatens to ban him again.
Gionet says he is willing to cooperate with YouTube’s Community Guidelines but argues he should be treated like everyone else. “That’s a real second chance,” he said.
Part of Gionet’s reason for wanting his old content back is his recorded meeting with the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk, which he can’t access anymore.
“I have no other way of ever seeing that footage again,” he added, “and when I pleaded with YouTube to allow me to recover that footage, they responded by threatening to terminate my channel.”
Gionet hasn’t uploaded any videos since his return, and hopes a resolution can be made.
“I find this to be deeply disturbing not only for myself but any aspiring creator who wants to build a platform on YouTube,” he continued. “I hope we can have a civil discourse and get to the bottom of why they have such a bias against conservatives.”
It remains debatable whether YouTube is making internal changes because its leadership is simply adapting to the Trump administration or genuinely recognizes its faults in regulating speech. Cato Institute fellow David Inserra hopes it’s the latter motivation.
“I think there’s a recognition that maybe some of the things that they were doing seemed right in the moment to them, but maybe they think that they were too harsh or were removing too much speech,” he told the Washington Examiner.
If YouTube is indeed self-aware about its content moderation practices in the past five years, Inserra said he applauds the company for giving people the opportunity to create content again, calling that a “noble idea.”
Others with a more skeptical outlook may question the influential role that federal antitrust enforcement plays in getting Big Tech companies to cooperate with conservatives.
Google, in particular, faces pressure from the Trump administration in multiple pending antitrust lawsuits, one of which is now in the remedies phase after a federal judge’s ruling in September. That case, led by the Department of Justice, is related to Google’s alleged monopoly on search engines.
Inserra believes the federal government’s leverage over Google in the form of antitrust enforcement could be connected to YouTube’s recent changes, but noted he has no direct evidence of a link between the two. He generally thinks leverage in this context is a bad idea.
When asked if YouTube is afraid of getting sued by creators, the Cato expert argued the company has a strong legal position found in Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. The federal provision grants immunity to online platforms that moderate or otherwise remove certain content in good faith, even if there is a valid case against such moderation.
In 2022, Dr. Joseph Mercola filed a lawsuit against YouTube for terminating his medical channel the year before over allegedly false claims about COVID-19 vaccines. He ultimately lost the case in a district court and later an appeals court because the judges found that it was reasonable for YouTube to consider his anti-vaccine content harmful to the public.
Notably, Mercola started posting videos again in March 2024 while his case was pending. The appellate ruling was handed down two months later.
Before his channel’s termination, Mercola had over 300,000 subscribers on YouTube, according to his complaint. Now, he only has roughly 27,800 subscribers on his active channel.
GOOGLE VOWS TO RESTORE YOUTUBE CONTENT CREATORS BANNED OVER POLITICAL SPEECH
Whether YouTube remains committed to upholding free speech for all users remains to be seen, but if applied equally and fairly, the second chance program could be a step in the right direction.
“In light of the period we just came through, where a lot of policies were created in general, I think it’s worthwhile for platforms to take a second look at, ‘Have we removed people who maybe we shouldn’t have removed? Have we removed speech that we maybe should have allowed? Did we go too far?’” Inserra asked, posing hypothetical questions. “I think those are fair questions for all platforms to ask.”
