TheAIGuy

. AI-voiced D&D & RPGs
🎲 Real dice · AI voices · AI art. 🎲
👇Full episodes on YouTube. Discord in the link.👇

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

@GabyLiveTv Cheers! Raarh has some incredible anger issues x'D

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

the guard rolled a nat 20 on my barbarian. he did not take it well

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

@memeslich But did you know Viggo Mortensen broke his foot when he kicked the helmet in Two Towers?

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

@jerrod_lew Agree on v4. I just re-voiced a bunch of my chars and it's night and day.

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

@ZeyHashimoto @get_artcraft He's getting closer

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

@ZeyHashimoto @get_artcraft

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

@Artedeingenio He was never getting that smile back.

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

full episode if you want the whole mess: https://t.co/dcqkyMncNb

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

Respectfully, three template responses through private channels haven't produced a single specific. Public visibility was the only thing that triggered any human engagement. I'll continue the email thread, but enforcement processes that operate without specifics, evidence, or accountability are exactly the kind of thing the public, the press, and increasingly regulators have a legitimate interest in seeing. That visibility doesn't go away because it's inconvenient to the platform.

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

Update on the 'human' appeal.

Denied.

No videos cited.
No changes specified.
No engagement with the evidence.

A generic template asking me to "refine my content" without identifying what that means.

Three template responses now. Three.
Not one piece of evidence engaged with.
Not one specific claim addressed.
Not one human assessment of the actual work.

Three years of work.
A documented production stack.
Paid commercial licensing.
154 episodes.
A 5-hour arc finale shipped this month.
A public dossier laid out 48 hours ago with receipts on every claim.

The reply: a paragraph. A template.

I've asked yet again for specifics. Until those arrive, the 90-day window is theoretical. I cannot fix what they will not name.

Episode 155 is up on Patreon later today. I will admit, it's going to be shorter than usual. Dealing with this all week ate into the time the episode would have, and I'm exhausted.
Times like this I wish I had a template I could lean on to ship faster.

The work is still there, the love is still there, and the story moves forward.
Patreon is now where this will exclusively live for early access.

Thank you to the thousands of you who made that floor real this week.
Thank you to the 100+ who joined Patreon within 24 hours.
Thank you to my 21 Demigod-tier patrons (6 in the last 48hrs) paying $75 a month each for "slop."

I'm done asking for appeals. I want the evidence. @TeamYouTube - which videos triggered this? What specifically failed compliance? If you can't name either, the decision has no basis. I cannot fix what you will not identify, and I will not pretend the 90-day window is real until you can.

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

One screenshot. YouTube's own dashboard. Same channel, within two days

Three days ago YouTube demonetised my channel of 154 episodes for "inauthentic content - mass produced." My appeal came back denied yesterday.

The same week, YouTube's own analytics tool generated this assessment of my latest episode: "performing exceptionally well... an outlier in the best possible way."

I've spent 3 years, working 50-70 hours per week building a serialised D&D campaign in an original world, with an audience of 1,250+ paying supporters across BOTH YouTube + Patreon, 500 of whom are now being cut off from supporting what they love, losing membership badges they've held for 2+ years.

If nothing else, this is unfair to them, and the damage is done.

The denial cites "similar template across multiple videos" as the reason. That criteria applies to every podcast, every gameplay channel, every long-form actual play show on YouTube. I'd genuinely like to understand what specifically distinguishes my work from the formats YouTube actively recommends.

The denial also says I can reapply in 90 days "after making changes." But the same email says they can't tell me which videos triggered the decision. You can't fix what you can't identify.

And at the risk of repeating myself, what good does that do for the woman who has been with the channel for 1 year 8 months, or the man for 2 years 5 months? Nothing. They're two of the 500 people now being cut off from supporting work they love, through no decision of their own. Or mine.

To @TeamYouTube - please open this case for human review. Every cited claim has been addressed with evidence in the replies below.

To my audience - please be respectful and polite if you engage. The work continues. I'll see you all Friday on Patreon.

- Lewis / TheAIGuy

(7 receipts in replies. Audio. Cinematic. Editing. Performance. Audience. Music licensing. The broken process.)

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

@TeamYouTube Done. Happy to provide whatever's needed.

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

One screenshot. YouTube's own dashboard. Same channel, within two days

Three days ago YouTube demonetised my channel of 154 episodes for "inauthentic content - mass produced." My appeal came back denied yesterday.

The same week, YouTube's own analytics tool generated this assessment of my latest episode: "performing exceptionally well... an outlier in the best possible way."

I've spent 3 years, working 50-70 hours per week building a serialised D&D campaign in an original world, with an audience of 1,250+ paying supporters across BOTH YouTube + Patreon, 500 of whom are now being cut off from supporting what they love, losing membership badges they've held for 2+ years.

If nothing else, this is unfair to them, and the damage is done.

The denial cites "similar template across multiple videos" as the reason. That criteria applies to every podcast, every gameplay channel, every long-form actual play show on YouTube. I'd genuinely like to understand what specifically distinguishes my work from the formats YouTube actively recommends.

The denial also says I can reapply in 90 days "after making changes." But the same email says they can't tell me which videos triggered the decision. You can't fix what you can't identify.

And at the risk of repeating myself, what good does that do for the woman who has been with the channel for 1 year 8 months, or the man for 2 years 5 months? Nothing. They're two of the 500 people now being cut off from supporting work they love, through no decision of their own. Or mine.

To @TeamYouTube - please open this case for human review. Every cited claim has been addressed with evidence in the replies below.

To my audience - please be respectful and polite if you engage. The work continues. I'll see you all Friday on Patreon.

- Lewis / TheAIGuy

(7 receipts in replies. Audio. Cinematic. Editing. Performance. Audience. Music licensing. The broken process.)

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

Thanks for responding @TeamYouTube

To clarify the timeline:
- Demonetisation: 26 April
- Appeal submitted via Studio: 27 April
- Appeal denied: 28 April

The standard appeal process you're referencing has already been completed and concluded. That's the situation the original post addresses. The denial provided no specific videos, no actionable feedback, and a 90-day reapply window with no path to identify what to change.

The original post is asking for human review of the contradictions listed throughout the main post and the 7 supporting replies, not for the appeals process to be re-run.

Happy to provide any context that would help.

- Lewis

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

7/7 - The broken process & closing

The standard YouTube enforcement ladder is: copyright claim, copyright strike, community guidelines strike, then channel-level enforcement. Each tier provides specific feedback. The creator knows what was flagged and how to fix it.

"Inauthentic content" channel-level demonetisation skips this entire ladder.
Harshest enforcement, least specific feedback.
No specific video flagged.
No clear corrective action available.

The 90-day reapply window only functions as rehabilitation if the creator can identify what to change. Without specifics, it's not corrective. It's a guess.

I want to be clear: I understand the position YouTube is in. AI is new, evolving fast, and many want to use it. The platform has a real responsibility to keep the viewing experience meaningful for the billions of people who come here.

That goal isn't wrong.

It's the same goal I have for my own work, which is why I'm doing all the things creators are asked to do: Paid commercial licensing.
Professional production tooling.
Original world-building.
Transparent disclosure of AI assistance.
Sustained craft.

Give respect, receive respect.

There are aspects of my situation I'm not going to share publicly, but enforcement decisions of this kind aren't abstract. They affect mortgages, families, physical and mental health, livelihoods built over years on the platforms own encouragement.

As YouTube's own CEO @nealmohan put it in his 2026 annual letter: "YouTube remains the original and largest creator economy. Creators call us home because we offer the most stable path to earn."
Source: https://t.co/tsPJVdIzib

And even if my channel is reinstated tomorrow, that whispering fear in the back of my mind of receiving another email like this will never fully leave. It also doesn't undo what's already happened to supporters. Members whose auto-renewals lapse during the suspension lose their badges, their tenure, their continuous-support history. That doesn't come back when a channel is reinstated.

The 500 people I mentioned at the top of this thread; their relationship with what they've built alongside me has been disrupted in a way no policy reversal can fully repair.

And that's cruel.

I don't want to overstep. But I think the first step toward restoring trust between creators caught in this wave and the platform isn't case-by-case appeals. It's an acknowledgement of the issue at scale, a thorough review of the system itself, and a statement to those who were incorrectly affected.

I love YouTube.
I always have.
I still do.

The platform you're trying to protect is the same one I've been trying to contribute to and nurture for three years.

Your motive seems just.
The end goal is shared.
The process is what's broken.

[TheAIGuy @WeDoAIStuff]

6/7 - Music licensing

The denial cites "songs you did not originally create which have been modified to change the pitch or speed."

All music is obtained either from the Epidemic Sound CREATOR plan (paid commercial licence: "Monetize 1 channel per platform")
or
Suno PREMIER plan ("Commercial use rights for new songs made".)

Both platforms operate clearance systems specifically to prevent the workflow YouTube's denial describes.
The cited example doesn't apply to the workflow.

And if it did, three licensing systems would have caught it before it reached YouTube; Epidemic, Suno, and YouTube's own Content ID, which would either generate a CLAIM or a STRIKE.

A failure across all three is a system failure, NOT a creator failure.

The two Content ID claims I have received over the last 3 years were all immediately resolved by my licensing partners. The system works. So either it can't be music, or YouTube is choosing to ignore the three-strike rule it built specifically for this category of issue.

Reclassifying 154 episodes as violations even though the system didn't and hasn't flagged them, is shooting in the dark.

To summarise, if creators' livelihoods are being removed based on assumptions about licensing rights, when YouTube's own Content ID system exists specifically to verify those rights, the issue isn't the creator. It's the process.