Creator feud erupts after YouTube takes down Infovloger

Clickbait war: YouTube takes down Infovloger's channel

In the attention economy, a creator's enemy is not always the platform: sometimes it is another creator. The disappearance of Infovloger's channel has exposed a little-visible fight: the one political YouTubers are waging over a slice of the advertising pie. YouTube has removed the channel of the communicator, who had become a critical voice against the Spanish Government and an explicit supporter of VOX (a Spanish right-wing party). In parallel, Aitor Guisasola, the lawyer known as "the lawyer against demagogy", has launched direct attacks against him. Open war.

Political censorship or platform policy?

The first reading circulating is that of censorship. Infovloger had urged people to vote for VOX and had harshly criticized the Government, which for some would be reason enough for those in power to pressure YouTube. However, this version clashes with the facts: the channel had already had its videos demonetized for at least a year, a punishment YouTube applies for breaches of its content policies, not for political leanings. Prolonged demonetization is usually the step preceding channel removal.

The fight between creators: two ways of selling the same thing

The second reading, less epic but closer to the business, is that the war between Infovloger and Guisasola is a dispute over the same audience. Both live off the same product: videos with sensationalist headlines promising imminent resignations, scandals and conspiracies. The irony is that Guisasola, who presents himself as a scourge of demagogy, is accused of precisely that. Some point out that his titles are "delusional", "brutal", "terrible", and that his videos are a collection of second-hand news at a breakneck pace. Others recall that Infovloger was no stranger to clickbait, but that at least he fact-checked information. The reality is that 99% of titles on YouTube are clickbait, as even the community itself acknowledges.

The controversy business: depending on an algorithm

Behind the row lies a fragile business model. Political creators depend on YouTube's algorithm, on advertising monetization and on the patience of a platform that increasingly tolerates less uncomfortable content. Demonetization is the favorite weapon: they do not ban the speech, they strip it of profitability. Guisasola, for example, runs a paid platform and has managed to diversify. Infovloger, on the other hand, has seen his channel fall without explanations. Those who defend the business version argue that YouTube applies these sanctions automatically, without political bias. Skeptics point out that the platform, owned by Google, has a history of opaque decisions and that dissenting speech usually fares worse. The question remains open: how many critical creators can afford to depend on a company that decides who gets paid and who does not?