De Hek affirms that policy infractions were the reason for the firing in a press statement posted on his website on January 21.

December 2024 Incident

When Ryan “Ryzn” Conley was interviewed about WEB3 in December, he showed off his hairy butt on video.

Technically, the short and non-explicit exposure might be regarded as nudity. Since I was live-streaming at the time, I didn’t give it much thought and decided to keep the video up since I thought it was just another piece of material that people often saw on YouTube, such as half-naked people wearing G-strings.

Nevertheless, the video was marked by YouTube and given a Community Guidelines strike. Despite my appeal, the strike was upheld and has a February 7 expiry date.

January 20, 2025 The incident

I was live-streaming a Zoom conference that was hosted by Megan Lynch, who is notorious for pushing scams, when “TUGMAN,” a person who submitted obscene stuff, invaded my broadcast with the obvious goal of forcing the Zoom meeting to cease.

I was unable to edit the video right away due to YouTube’s processing limits, and it was accessible for three or four hours before I decided to make it private. After YouTube processing the next morning, I was able to edit and remove any sexual material in accordance with YouTube’s guidelines.

In spite of these safeguards, YouTube launched another attack. Lynch, who has a sizable fan base on the internet, openly asked her followers to report my channel, which seems to have been successful in keeping my voice quiet.

When I contacted de Hek about the third strike—three strikes are usually required for YouTube terminations—he responded as follows:

To be honest, I’m not sure whether there was a third strike. Since they don’t say anything to you, you would comprehend.

De Hek reports that he has lost his Facebook and Zoom accounts in addition to his YouTube page. DDOS attacks are also being launched against de Hek’s websites.

Even though these assaults are upsetting, they are a mark of honour, demonstrating how sensitive people are to exposing frauds such as WE ARE ALL SATOSHI.

The battle to expose the truth will go on regardless of how many denial-of-service assaults they launch against me.

Lastly, two recent de Hek podcast episodes have been singled out;

Two of my podcast episodes, titled Exposing the Truth: My Experience with Class Action Recovery Services: Legit or Fraudulent?, were sent to me by Buzzsprout’s support staff on January 15, 2025. as well as Craig Wotton and Rory Conacher: Former Ponzi Promoter Becomes False Crypto Recovery Leader(s) — were reported for breaking their terms of service.

Buzzsprout said that the episodes had “harmful content” and that unless I took action to keep them up to date, they would be deleted in 48 hours.

I replied very away, providing proof that the programs were based on investigative journalism and accurate reporting.

My goal was to educate and shield the public from financial abuse, not to cause damage.

I maintained that my work has been acknowledged by respectable publications like Bloomberg and The New York Times and is supported by a wealth of data. But in the end, Buzzsprout chose to delete the episodes in spite of my attempts.

My attempts to identify con artists and protect prospective victims were thwarted by this ruling. It also brought up more general issues of free speech and the difficulties experienced by content producers who have the audacity to expose dishonest people.

Even when influential platforms give in to pressure from outside sources, I stick by my reporting and continue to pursue my goal of exposing the truth.

It’s not simple. You often come across con artists who have embezzled millions of dollars while hiding in law-abiding areas. Then there are their attorneys (who were paid with the aforementioned millions that were stolen), collaborators, top promoters, and indoctrinated customers who have fallen for their scams.

Furthermore, as shown by de Hek’s recent difficulties, third-party platforms for whom comprehending the implications of reporting financial fraud is outside of their purview (i.e., it doesn’t earn them money, so why bother).

De Hek writes:

Even though YouTube accepts appeals, my chances of being reinstated are slim given my prior encounters with their automated methods and ambiguous regulations.

As a vigilante against frauds, I admit that my efforts have sometimes violated the terms and conditions of several sites. But my only goal has been to safeguard victims and expose crooks.

I collaborate closely with international crime-fighting networks and law enforcement organisations, who utilise my recordings and the database I’ve created to look into these fraudulent acts.

It has been an intellectually and emotionally exhausting road to expose scammers. I’m still dedicated to justice in spite of de-platforming, litigation, and threats. But given the present circumstances, I doubt that this battle can be sustained.

Systemic issues with the way platforms handle complaints and appeals are shown in the cancellation of “The Crypto Ponzi Scheme Avenger.” Sincere attempts to stop fraud are thwarted while con artists take advantage of these flaws.

I urge YouTube and other Internet behemoths to increase openness and cooperation with public-interested persons.

For the time being, the battle goes on—with unflinching commitment, on new platforms, and with new tactics.