Blocker🇺🇲

@TeamYouTube @KickStreaming Please review the following evidence concerning Jay4Justice (@everydaywithj4j) and AllegedlyBrittneyJ (@AllegedlyBrittneyJ), their reporting activity, and encouragement to strike channels reviewing their content. The issue is bigger than a creator feud. I’m concerned these complaint systems are being used to intimidate reviewers—and whether Jay and Brittney apply the same standards to themselves that they demand from everyone else. Both creators use other people’s broadcasts for commentary, while these passages show them encouraging or threatening action against people streaming theirs. Their explanations and the actual uses deserve comparison. JAY — NOVEMBER 1 youtube.com/watch?v=jgE2gCr0… 02:09:49–02:10:04 — “Get her, Brit … shut them down, baby.” 02:10:34–02:10:59 — Brittney’s strikes are described as legitimate, while opponents’ strikes are characterized as suppressing what audiences hear. 02:11:10–02:11:17 — Jay distinguishes reviews of completed streams from simultaneous restreaming. That distinction is part of her stated position. 02:12:03–02:12:36 — Jay recounts finding a simultaneous restream, notifying Brittney and a purported Kick moderator telling the reviewer to stop. 02:13:02–02:13:08 — “I say strike them all if they’re live streaming you while you’re live.” NOW COMPARE JAY — OCTOBER 23 youtube.com/watch?v=yF-WJWB3… 02:02:31–02:03:23 — Jay says HER reaction to Buzzy would still be fair use “whether it’s live or pre-recorded,” then criticizes people using copyright procedures to take down opinions they dislike. So your live reactions deserve a fair-use argument, but other creators get “strike them all”? Apparently, the standard comes with a friends-and-family setting. BRITTNEY’S KICK CHAT — “Fvkery Fridayyyyy” These are raw chat-clock times, NOT playback timestamps. The export identifies the author handle as Jayis4justice; it does not supply an immutable account ID. 12:00:47 AM — “trisha stalks is playing u in REAL TIME with 700 watching...i would email kick.” 12:00:55 AM — “no commentary” 12:03:21 AM — Supplies the targeted channel’s link. 12:03:57 AM — Supplies Kick’s support email. 12:09:53 AM — “just tell them she's mirroring you with no commentary” 12:17:17 AM — “she stopped bc she got reported” These messages document the account identifying a channel and encouraging a complaint. The allegation of simultaneous mirroring without commentary should be checked against the footage. The claim that reporting caused the stream to stop is not independently established. BRITTNEY’S YOUTUBE CHAT — “Its Nooovemmberr” youtube.com/watch?v=5pK3BFGu… These are raw exported dates and times, NOT playback timestamps. The author is @everydaywithj4j, with the channel ID matching Everyday with Jay. The export does not specify a timezone. November 2, 05:22:02 — “You can play whatever you want. It’s about you” November 2, 05:22:18 — “Brittney use whatever u want. They review you so play away” November 2, 06:19:34 — “IzMac doing it again.” November 2, 06:20:10 — “Got it up in real time” November 2, 06:28:32 — “It’s not false reporting when you’re stealing content” “Play away” for your friend. “Stealing” for the reviewer. Explain the actual difference in the content, Jay—not simply whose channel benefits. JAY — NOVEMBER 3: “It’s HOT, I’m BORED. Watch This With Me!” youtube.com/watch?v=kEQWYRF8… 00:31:51–00:31:59 and 01:15:02–01:15:19 — Jay offers to stream opponents’ material so Truth can cover it through her broadcast. This stream does not add a direct strike instruction. It does show her willingness to facilitate further coverage, which belongs in the comparison. BRITTNEY — “This Is NoT NoRmal” kick.com/therealbrittneyj/vi… 00:43:09–00:43:34 — Says she is being stream sniped and is trying to “strike or report somebody.” 00:54:52–00:55:12 — Says she reported the “stream snipers.” 01:07:16–01:07:38 — Says she will make sure Kick knows people are “stealing” her content. 01:25:08–01:25:25 — Says she is “trying to freaking report people.” 02:54:39–02:55:07 — Asks whether someone is streaming her on Kick or YouTube, then threatens a strike. 03:09:08–03:09:42 — Discusses playing other creators’ material while announcing, “I’m going to strike you, and then we’re going to play.” 03:14:09–03:14:18 — Announces another strike threat. 03:24:45–03:24:58 — “I’m going to play Wendy, and I’m going to strike her.” Apparently, other people’s content is tonight’s entertainment, but her own comes with a complaints department. REPEATED PERSONAL TARGETING FOR CONTEXTUAL REVIEW JAY — OCTOBER 20, 03:13:45–03:15:53 Extended ridicule involving skin, legs and wrinkles, mixed with replayed remarks. Distinguish the speakers. youtube.com/watch?v=-rO0B6CI… JAY — OCTOBER 27, 06:52:06–06:52:19 Remarks targeting Buzzy’s feet and toenails. youtube.com/watch?v=jr7jxMTx… JAY — NOVEMBER 1, 01:46:37–01:47:02 Ridicule involving Buzzy’s cellulite, leg appearance and toenails. youtube.com/watch?v=jgE2gCr0… JAY — NOVEMBER 3 youtube.com/watch?v=kEQWYRF8… 00:18:43–00:18:58 — Jay acknowledges her “I’ll mock your DV” remark, while saying she did not discuss the details or read the report. 00:36:35–00:36:44 — Tells viewers to spread a humiliating bodily claim about Clue. The underlying claim is not established here. 01:08:32–01:09:49 — Repeated body and bathing-suit taunts. 01:33:58–01:36:39 — Extended weight and face-shape ridicule. The actual footage matters. Simultaneous mirroring without commentary and substantive reaction coverage can involve different circumstances. These passages do not establish that every complaint was false, every restream was permissible, or a platform actually issued a strike. They do warrant asking whether the same standards are being applied and whether complaints accurately describe the content being reported. @TeamYouTube @KickStreaming, please review the specific conduct and complaints in context. Anyone submitting a report should watch the surrounding footage, identify the actual speaker and describe the conduct accurately. Criticism is not automatically infringement. A creator feud should not become a competition over who can get whose channel removed.