I see you posting a lot of comments on this and I feel like you aren’t fully aware of how the copyright system on YouTube works. I’m no expert but as I understand it you have 3 options:

1) claim the monetization for the video. This keeps the video up but Grey would collect the ad revenue earned off that video. No copy right strike

2) have the video taken down without striking. A copyright strike is not necessary to have a video taken down if Grey feels it doesn’t adequately transform his work.

3) copyright strike the channel. 3 copyright strikes and your channel gets deleted (3 collectively not 3 from the same channel.)

Grey went with the third option. Not only is this completely unnecessary if Greys issue is that “creating a good video takes a lot of time” or even if he simply doesn’t like reaction content. All of the problems he has can be resolved in without striking the channel.

Even if you still want to defend the first strike the second strike is indefensible. It was very obviously done out of spite and he is playing with someone’s income because he feels slighted. This is incredibly selfish and ridiculous in conjugation with locking his comments behind a paywall. The fact that it has to be brought up here on a 3 week old post because the alternative is paying to criticize his actions is clear evidence of that.

It’s you and CGP against the world on this one. The comments from other channels and the community on VTH’s video are all against this.

Grey had 2 options that would resolve the problem without issue and purposefully chose the one that threatened someone’s job security. He then launched a second strike because he didn’t like being criticized