After 5.5 years and 24,200 subscribers, my YouTube channel was terminated over an old link in my video description template.

I’m not disputing that the link existed. About three years ago I added a Linktree to my upload template. It led, indirectly, to an adult platform, and I forgot it was there. On 16 August 2026 YouTube terminated my channel for “severe or repeated violations” of its nudity and sexual content policy. I had never been warned about the link.

My first appeal was denied. Once I understood the link was the cause, I removed it and escalated to YouTube support. They upheld the termination.

The policy and the punishment don’t match.

• YouTube’s External Links policy says first-time violations will “likely” get a warning, with termination reserved for “severe abuse” or channels “dedicated to” a violation. I don’t believe mine was either. It was a comedy commentary channel with one forgotten link.
• As far as I can find, the policy never mentions link-in-bio pages, landing pages, or how many clicks away a destination can be.
• A separate YouTube email told me this was “just a warning” and that I could still upload, post and livestream, while my channel stayed terminated. Other creators received the same email. YouTube never explained which message was true

Enforcement looks inconsistent.

• Other creators terminated in the same wave have been reinstated, including ASMR creator Bunnii (227k subscribers), who confirmed it publicly.
• I’ve found active channels of many sizes, including OnlyFans’ own official channel, that link to adult platforms directly or through Instagram.
• I’ve seen a creator who received a warning and had a Linktree link removed under this same policy.

YouTube can do this proportionately.

Studio lets creators bulk-edit descriptions across a whole catalogue. On 3 November 2026 Tubefilter reported that YouTube is testing a 30-day locked period for spam-flagged channels, so creators can fix problems and return instead of being deleted. That’s a different policy, but it shows a fix-it window is possible.

A federal investigation is asking the same question.

Bloomberg and Reuters reported on 27 August 2026 that the US Federal Trade Commission is investigating YouTube’s account suspensions. The reporting says the inquiry is examining whether users were misled by YouTube’s content policies into believing their content was allowed, only for it to be removed or their accounts suspended. That’s the experience I and other creators have described: no warning, no chance to fix a problem, and enforcement that didn’t match what we understood the rules to be.

The impact.

I lost my channel and my main income. I’ve also lost access to my second channel, a political commentary channel that had been approved for monetisation the day before. The only route back is a discretionary pilot program, a year away, that starts a new channel from zero.

I’m asking YouTube to:

• Reinstate my channel, or at least give me the fix-it period offered to others.
• Publish clear rules on indirect and landing-page links.
• Give a warning, link removal and a chance to fix before terminating first-time external link violations.
• Explain why enforcement and reinstatement have been inconsistent.