How to Effectively Report a YouTube Channel for Fraudulent Inflation and Deceptive Practices

In today’s digital world, it is crucial to uphold a fair and trustworthy online environment. When viewers detect questionable practices, such as inflated view and subscriber counts and misleading promotions, it is only natural for them to take action. If you notice that the company you're boycotting is artificially boosting their views and subscriber count through dubious tactics, knowing how to report them effectively on YouTube is essential. This guide will walk you through the steps to report such behavior, offering insights into the process and the evidence gathered.

Understanding the Context

Reporting fraudulent activities on YouTube helps protect consumers and promotes fairness in the digital space. A perfect example is the scrutiny surrounding the Ninestar Studios channel. Following a widespread boycott, the company experienced a significant and consistent drop in followers and subscribers across all of their social media platforms. However, an unusual shift occurred when their YouTube channel suddenly stopped losing subscribers. The channel’s subscriber gains and view counts appeared inconsistent, raising suspicions that something was amiss—especially as the patterns didn’t align with the drop in engagement observed on their other platforms.

In response to this discrepancy, former fans now participating in the boycott have taken it upon themselves to analyze the channel's publicly available viewership data, looking for answers. The numbers just don’t seem to add up, and the community is questioning whether the sustained view count is truly reflective of genuine audience engagement — or if there’s something artificial at play.

What started as a few fans noticing suspicious spikes in viewership turned into a full-scale community investigation, peeling back layers of deception buried in plain sight. Their deep dive uncovered damning patterns—like artificially inflated subscriber numbers added in robotic waves, and manipulative monetization tactics that encouraged viewers to pay for votes in a competition whose outcome had already been sealed. Perhaps most tellingly, more than one finalist had no intention of claiming the prize—a contract with the very company they were supposedly competing to join. This wasn't just about bending the rules; it was a calculated effort to exploit both the platform and its audience. What the fans revealed wasn’t just a scandal—it was a sharp reminder of the power of collective scrutiny in holding companies accountable.

Collecting Evidence of Fraudulent Activity

The channel experience one of many spikes of exactly 333 subscribers.

The channel experiencing one of many 1000 subscriber spikes.

United by a shared concern, a dedicated team of analysts was created, where they combined their findings and collaborated across time zones, allowing them to monitor the company's channel around the clock. This international effort proved crucial, as it enabled them to identify patterns, inconsistencies, and signs of inflated views and subscriber counts that might have otherwise gone unnoticed. By pooling their resources and dedicating their precious time to intensive monitoring and analysis, they were able to uncover further evidence that strengthened the case against the company’s alleged manipulation. This validated their individual suspicions, giving their investigation more weight and credibility. Their collective work demonstrates the power of a united community in holding larger entities accountable through shared knowledge and vigilance.

Before filing any report, it's crucial to gather solid evidence to support the claims. In the following section, we’ll dive into the evidence gathered by this committed team of fans. This breakdown will not only reveal how the deception was detected, but also help readers understand the tactics being used—and why it matters.

Documenting View Counts

During a previous campaign, fans aimed for a viewership target of 300 million views across episodes of the channel’s show Blank the Series. While fans were actively streaming the episodes to reach the goal, the channel was reporting view counts of an average of 300k views per day. Despite an ongoing significant boycott in which previous fans have not only committed to unsubscribing from the channel, but also refusing to watch any of their videos, the company still is reporting unexpectedly high view counts, which raises concerns.

It seems highly suspicious that their YouTube channel is consistently maintaining around 300,000 views per day, even amid an ongoing boycott. This view rate matches what they were getting before the boycott, at a time when fans were actively streaming their content. However, their most recent uploads are only pulling in 5,000 to 20,000 views each, which raises a valid question — where are the rest of the views coming from? If active supporters are no longer engaging at the same rate, it’s worth asking whether these numbers are organic or if there’s something else going on behind the scenes.

Capturing Irregular Patterns

Through detailed tracking and timestamped data collection, clear, repeated patterns of irregular growth were identified that strongly suggest artificial manipulation of subscriber numbers.

Specifically, the team observed consistent spikes in subscribers at exact or near-identical time intervals—behavior that deviates sharply from typical organic growth. These sudden increases often occurred without any correlating content releases or promotional activity that would naturally drive such surges, pointing to the use of bots or purchased subscribers to inflate the channel’s perceived popularity.

The channel’s subscribers would steadily decrease until it would reach 855k subscribers. At that very moment, the subscribers would suddenly spike up to 855,333k, then begin steadily decreasing again. This was recorded by multiple individuals over the course of a few weeks. A new pattern began with sudden spikes of 1000 subscribers. On one day alone, it was recorded that the channel experienced six different 1000 subscriber spikes, in which five of these spikes were nearly immediately removed. The latest pattern that the team has discovered is a sort of drip-feed of subscribers in which 1 new subscriber is added at nearly exactly 46-minute intervals.

These patterns not only undermine the integrity of platform metrics but also raises serious questions about the company’s efforts to mask the impact of the boycott and mislead both the public and stakeholders. Here’s a full report with visual evidence and data logs, created with evidence collected by the Sassy-tistic team: Candy, Jayce, Mimi, Nat, Pam, MK, Magda, and Metrics Master.

Comparing Engagement Rates

The team also analyzed data from the months leading up to now—specifically during the period when the channel enjoyed genuine popularity and the company had not yet been subject to a public boycott. By comparing this earlier data to current metrics, clear discrepancies emerged in audience engagement patterns, providing strong evidence of inauthentic growth and manipulated performance. It doesn't make sense that the channel is experiencing the same, and at times even higher, engagement rates now compared to when it was in peak popularity, especially considering that the views on their most recent uploads do not align with the inflated data presented in their overall metrics.

Highlighting Deceptive Voting Practices

Attention should be brought to the company’s misleading voting scenario, where viewers were led to believe they were voting for contestants who were not in contention. Viewers were actively encouraged to pay in order to vote for their favorite contestants—under the impression that their votes would directly influence the outcome and determine who would win a role in the company’s next project.

However, weeks before voting commenced, one of the top contestants had already confirmed that she would not be signing any contracts with the company, regardless of the competition’s outcome. Following the airing of the last episode, another contestant confirmed that she had already decided before the show had aired that she also wouldn’t be signing with the company. This means that even if viewers voted for them in good faith, those contestants were never actually going to accept the role.

Given this, it's reasonable to assume the company would be unlikely to allow those contestants to win, knowing they would decline the prize. Publicly announcing a winner who refuses the offer—especially amid an ongoing boycott—would risk further damage to the company's reputation, as many would interpret the refusal as a statement against the company itself.

To make matters worse, the final hours of the voting period showed a highly suspicious surge in votes for a specific contestant, indicating the outcome may have been manipulated or pre-determined. When paired with the fact that other top contestants had no intention of taking the role, this casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of the entire process.

This behavior clearly violates YouTube’s policies on misleading practices, especially in monetized content. According to YouTube's guidelines, creators must not engage in scams, fraudulent behavior, or any practice that intentionally deceives viewers—particularly when money is involved.

Encouraging paid participation in a contest whose outcome was never truly open, fair, or transparent is not only unethical, but potentially constitutes consumer fraud. Fans and viewers deserve better, and YouTube should be urged to investigate this matter seriously.

How to Submit a Report on YouTube

With all of the evidence in hand, it is time to report the channel. Here's how to do it effectively:

Open the YouTube Channel

Click the "About" Tab

On the channel's page, find and select the "About" tab where reporting options are located. If you’re on a mobile phone, click the three dots in the top right corner of the page. On a computer, click the “more” option on the channel’s bio, then scroll to the bottom.

Select "Report User"

Choose the "Report user" option and select a reason that aligns with "spam or misleading" content. Choose any recent video to report.

Provide Specific Details

In the text box, summarize the evidence you've gathered. Be clear and concise, focusing on the most critical details to avoid overwhelming the reviewer. Below, I will provide both general and specific prompts created by KK, Hina, Pam, and myself that you can use.

Submit Your Report

Review your information and hit the submit button. Remember that YouTube will take time to assess your report, depending on their internal processes.

Join the Mass Reports

To support the boycott, we ask that you follow the designated schedule for mass reporting the channel. On Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, we will be reporting at 9:00 PM BKK time. During these sessions, please ensure that you include the specific prompts provided below in your reports. These will be regularly updated as more information is collected, so be sure to save this link and check back here for the latest prompts. For the other days of the week, you can still contribute by making reports using the general prompts. Your participation is crucial in making sure our efforts remain focused and effective.

Prompts for Your Reports

The following section will provide a series of prompts that can be used to fill in the text box when summarizing why the channel should be reported. There will be both general prompts and more specific ones that include direct evidence. Please feel free to modify these prompts to fit your own wording and perspective, as this will help avoid spam and ensure that the reports are genuine and varied.

General Prompts

This channel manipulates the platform by using bots to inflate views and subscribers, and misleads fans by asking them to pay-vote for a contestant who has said she won’t sign with NineStar.
The content on this channel is supported by bots and fake engagement, and it is misleading fans into paying-voting for someone who has already announced she won’t be signing with NineStar.
This channel abuses the algorithm through bots and spam tactics, while also misleading fans to pay-vote for a contestant not signing with the company.
The channel’s viewership and subscriber count do not align with typical user behavior patterns. Subscriber numbers have been remaining stagnant or artificially increasing, while the rest of the engagement data (likes, comments, shares) does not reflect the same growth.
The subscriber count on the channel has been stuck at a specific number (e.g. 855k) for an extended period, and users have documented sudden spikes of exactly 333 subscribers at regular intervals, which strongly suggests artificial manipulation.
There is clear evidence that the channel experiences sudden and abnormal spikes in subscriber count that cannot be attributed to organic growth. These spikes follow a predictable pattern and appear to be bot-driven rather than from real, engaged viewers.
Screenshots and video captures from multiple sources show that the subscriber count frequently jumps by an exact number (e.g. 333, 1000, 1) at regular intervals. These spikes occur despite minimal new content being uploaded, further reinforcing the suspicion that bots are inflating the subscriber numbers.

General Prompts (w/Topics)

1️. Manipulate the views by using the “real active views” to bypass detection:

We've reported this channel for 3+ months with no major action taken. It likely uses third-party services offering “real active views” to bypass detection. This misleads the algorithm and harms real creators. Please investigate view sources and engagement.
We’ve reported this channel for over 3 months with no major action. It may be using third-party services offering “real active views” to bypass detection. This hurts real creators and misleads YouTube’s systems. Please review the channel's view sources and authenticity.
This channel has been reported for 3+ months. It’s likely using paid services promising “real active views” to trick the system. No real engagement, just inflated numbers. Please investigate traffic sources. It’s unfair to creators playing by the rules.
We've raised concerns about this channel for months, but nothing’s changed. It shows signs of using fake view services labeled as “monetized & real.” These tactics harm genuine creators. We ask the team to investigate its traffic and engagement data.
This account appears to be violating YouTube’s Fake Engagement Policy. After 3 months of reports, there's still no action. It may use third-party services for artificial views. Please audit the channel’s engagement and view traffic.
This channel appears to manipulate views using services that sell “real active views” to bypass YouTube’s detection. Despite high views, engagement remains low. This is artificial growth and violates the Fake Engagement Policy. Please investigate.
The channel uses “real active views” services that drip-feed views to avoid detection. These are paid, inauthentic views masked as organic traffic. It’s misleading and harms fair creator competition. Please audit their traffic sources.
This channel is buying “real active views” to inflate numbers. Views rise steadily, but likes, comments, and subscribers don’t match. It’s clear view manipulation designed to pass as organic. Please review the authenticity of this activity.
Likely using “real active views” to trick the algorithm. These services claim legitimacy, but they're paid fake views. The goal is to boost rankings while engagement stays low. This is manipulation and should be investigated.
Services selling “real active views” are being used here to fake growth while appearing legit. It still violates YouTube’s Fake Engagement Policy. Views are high, but subs and interaction are minimal. Please review this suspicious activity.

2️. Abnormal view-to-subscriber ratio (Based on data April 23 via Livecounts (8AM–8PM GMT-5) provided by Nats:

We monitored this channel on April 23 via Livecounts (8AM–8PM GMT-5). It gained 519,997 views in 12 hours but only 16 new subscribers. This extreme imbalance suggests bot activity or paid view services. Please investigate the authenticity of this traffic.
One of our team members tracked this channel via Livecounts on April 23 (8AM–8PM, GMT-5). The video gained 519,997 views during this time, yet only 16 new subscribers. This behavior is highly abnormal and suggests potential use of bot views or artificial inflation.
On April 23 (8AM–8PM GMT-5), this channel gained 519,997 views but only 16 new subscribers, tracked via Livecounts. This unnatural view-to-sub ratio strongly suggests the use of bot traffic or purchased views. Please investigate the source of these views.
We monitored this channel on April 23 for 12 hours (GMT-5). It gained 519,997 views with just 16 subscribers — a suspiciously low ratio. This points to artificial views, possibly from bots. Please review the channel's traffic for violations.
A 12-hour window (Apr 23, 8AM–8PM GMT-5) showed 519,997 views and only 16 subs. Such a skewed view-to-sub ratio signals non-organic activity. Likely fake engagement via third-party services. Please review for policy violations.
Huge spike: 519,997 views in 12 hours but only 16 subs (Apr 23, 8AM–8PM GMT-5). View-to-sub ratio is unnaturally low. Likely bot-driven or paid views to manipulate YouTube’s system. Please investigate traffic legitimacy.

3️. Drip Feed method to simulate organic growth and avoid detection by YouTube’s systems:

This channel appears to use the drip-feed method to inflate views. Views rise steadily over hours to mimic natural growth, but engagement remains extremely low. This tactic is used to avoid detection, but it still violates YouTube’s fake engagement policy.
We observed consistent hourly view spikes using Livecounts. — a sign of drip-feed view inflation. The low engagement (likes/comments/subs) suggests these views are purchased to appear organic. Please review the traffic authenticity.
This channel uses drip-fed views to make its growth appear organic. Engagement is not matching view count at all. These patterns point to fake engagement via services designed to bypass YouTube detection. Please audit this activity.
The view growth on this channel appears timed and steady, mimicking real user activity. This drip-feed tactic is often used by third-party services to fake organic views. It's deceptive and violates YouTube's fake engagement policy. Please investigate.
This channel appears to use the drip feed method — gradually adding fake views to simulate organic growth. Engagement remains abnormally low. It’s deceptive and likely a violation of YouTube’s fake engagement policy.
Suspected use of drip-fed fake views to avoid detection. Views rise steadily, but likes, comments, and subscriber growth remain minimal. The pattern is unnatural and suggests view manipulation.
This video’s view count increases slowly and consistently, but engagement stays near zero. Likely using drip feed services to mask fake traffic and avoid YouTube’s detection systems. Please investigate for policy abuse.
Growth pattern suggests the use of drip feed fake views. View count rises artificially over time, yet engagement is not proportional. This tactic misleads the algorithm and viewers. Please audit traffic sources.
Drip feeding fake views creates the illusion of steady growth, but engagement doesn’t match. This method is used to deceive YouTube’s algorithm while artificially boosting visibility. Please review for fake engagement.
Views increase steadily every day, but there’s no corresponding rise in likes, comments, or subscribers. This pattern suggests a drip feed of fake views designed to mimic real traffic. Please investigate the channel.

4️. Drip Feed method - selecting a video that already had traction before a boycott or controversy, and then artificially boosting it further to make it seem like it’s organically going viral:

The channel appears to use drip-fed views to fake natural growth. They boosted an older high-performing video (pre-boycott) to make it trend again. Views rise steadily, but engagement is still low. Likely fake engagement to mask declining interest.
They’re buying drip-feed views for a pre-boycott video that already had traction. This makes it look like the video’s popularity is rising again. But likes/subs remain low — clear sign of manipulation to game the algorithm. Please review traffic sources.
We noticed a view spike on an older video that was popular before a boycott. The drip-feed method makes growth seem organic, but engagement is flat. This appears to be a strategy to artificially revive the channel’s reach using fake views.
Drip-feed views were added to a video that was already doing well before a boycott. This gives the illusion of continued interest. But metrics show low engagement. This is likely an attempt to manipulate rankings and avoid detection.
After a boycott, this channel began boosting an older viral video using drip-fed views. The goal seems to be faking momentum. But the view-to-engagement ratio doesn’t match. Please review for potential policy violation and view manipulation.
This channel is buying slow-release views on a video that did well pre-boycott. The growth looks organic, but engagement is low. It’s likely meant to hide dropping interest and manipulate rankings. Please check traffic and behavior.
They’re boosting a pre-boycott video using drip-feed services to mimic organic traffic. Low subs and engagement show it’s fake. Likely trying to recover algorithm reach with bought views. Please investigate for manipulation.
This channel selected a high-performing video (before a boycott) and is drip-feeding views to make it trend again. Engagement remains flat, indicating fake engagement. It’s misleading and against YouTube policy.
Drip-fed views are being added to a pre-boycott video to simulate a comeback. But engagement (likes/comments/subs) is almost nonexistent. It’s a clear case of fake engagement meant to mislead viewers and the algorithm.

5️. Bots and fake views - abnormal view-to-engagement ratio:

This channel appears to use bot-generated fake views. While daily views are high, engagement is extremely low — almost no comments, likes, or subscriber growth. The view-to-engagement ratio is abnormal. Please investigate for fake engagement.
They are likely using bots or services providing “real fake views” — traffic that mimics organic behavior but results in no real engagement. The view count is inflated, yet comments, likes, and subs remain flat. Please review for artificial activity.
The view growth on this channel is clearly manipulated. Bot-driven fake views are being used to boost videos, but engagement remains near zero. The view-to-engagement ratio is unnatural. Likely a violation of YouTube’s fake engagement policy.
Daily views are increasing abnormally fast, while engagement (likes, comments, subs) stays low. This pattern suggests use of bots or fake view services to simulate organic growth. Please review for policy violations.
This channel seems to use bots to inflate view counts without real interaction. The engagement ratio is off — high views but almost no activity. These fake views mislead the algorithm. Please investigate for view manipulation.
The channel’s views are growing rapidly but don’t match the engagement. Almost no likes, comments, or subscribers despite massive view spikes. This suggests bot-generated or fake views — likely violating YouTube’s fake engagement policy.
This channel appears to exploit bot traffic to inflate view counts. Engagement metrics don’t support the numbers — very few interactions. It’s a sign of artificial growth designed to deceive viewers and the algorithm. Please review.
High view numbers with little to no interaction suggest use of fake bot views. Engagement is nearly nonexistent despite constant view increases. This seems to be a disguised form of manipulation meant to bypass platform detection.
Consistent abnormal view growth with flat engagement likely indicates bot traffic. This manipulation misleads the algorithm and undermines genuine creators. Please investigate the authenticity of this channel’s traffic sources.
The gap between views and engagement is too large to be organic. This channel likely uses bots or fake view services to boost stats. Very few comments, likes, or subscribers. It’s misleading and should be audited.

6️. Report for specific video - BLANK The Series SS2 เติมคำว่ารักลงในช่องว่าง EP.1 [2/4]:

Between Mar 27–Apr 24, this video gained 902K views but only 3K likes and 167 comments. That’s an abnormally low engagement ratio. The pattern suggests possible bot or fake view inflation. Please investigate for fake engagement activity.
This video received over 902K views in under a month, but has just 3K likes and 167 comments — less than 0.3% engagement. These numbers suggest fake or bot views were used to artificially boost the video’s reach. Please audit the traffic.
Huge view count (902K) with almost no interaction: 3K likes, 167 comments in 4 weeks. That’s not normal for organic growth. Suggests possible use of fake/bot traffic. Please investigate if this violates YouTube's fake engagement policy.
Engagement doesn’t match the view count: 902,358 views but only 3,014 likes and 167 comments. This raises concerns of fake or purchased views inflating the numbers. Please review for potential manipulation.
Video gained nearly 1M views (902K) in a month with almost no interaction (3K likes, 167 comments). This could be an attempt to game the algorithm using fake views. We urge YouTube to review the source of this traffic.
This video shows over 902K views in under a month but has only 3K likes and 167 comments. That’s less than 0.3% engagement. The numbers suggest fake views or bots are being used to simulate organic growth. Please investigate this video.
The video reached 902,358 views with barely 3,014 likes and 167 comments. This is a common pattern with view botting or drip-fed fake views. It’s not normal audience behavior and may violate YouTube’s fake engagement policy.
902K+ views, but less than 0.3% like ratio and barely any comments. That’s a major imbalance. This likely indicates purchased fake views with no real audience behind them. Please audit the traffic source of this content.
Video stats show inflated views (902K) but no real engagement — only 3K likes and 167 comments in 4 weeks. It appears fake views or bots are being used to boost visibility deceptively. Please review for authenticity.
With 902K views and such low engagement (3K likes, 167 comments), this video likely uses fake view services. It’s a tactic to trick the algorithm into thinking it’s trending. Please investigate for potential manipulation.

Specific Prompts (these will be updated)

Option A:

Livecounts data shows that from April 23 (8AM–8PM GMT-5), NineStar’s videos gained 519,997 views with only 16 new subs. The steady hourly view jumps fit the profile of drip-feed view bots. Their BLANK EP.1 video further exposes suspicious behavior: 902K views with less than 0.3% engagement. Historically, this channel showed exact sub spikes, linear growth with no fluctuation, and a long freeze at 855K, indicating repeated manipulation. Please audit this channel.

Option B:

NineStar’s April 23 activity shows 519,997 views gained in 12 hours but just 16 subscribers added — monitored via Livecounts. This behavior matches drip feed inflation tactics. Meanwhile, BLANK EP.1 shows 902K views but minimal likes/comments. The channel has a long pattern of 1K/333 subscriber bursts, robotic step-by-step growth, and previous bot suspicions. We urge YouTube to review this case carefully.

Option C:

Over 12 hours on April 23, NineStar gained 519,997 views but only 16 subscribers. The suspiciously low engagement points toward drip-fed fake views. BLANK EP.1 also recorded 902K views with poor engagement rates. This channel previously exhibited sub-package inflation, a stalled sub counter, and perfectly timed robotic increases — suggesting systematic manipulation, not random behavior. Please investigate.

Option D:

Between 8AM and 8PM GMT-5 on April 23, NineStar’s channel gained over 519K views with just 16 new subscribers. Their view increases were steady, consistent with drip-feed bot methods. BLANK EP.1 likewise saw 902K views but near-zero interaction. Historically, this channel used suspicious sub bursts and long-term view manipulation tactics. This pattern needs urgent review.

Option E:

During 12-hour tracking on April 23, NineStar gained 519,997 views and 16 subscribers — a major discrepancy suggesting drip-feed fake traffic. The BLANK EP.1 video also reflects fake view tactics with 902K views but only 3K likes and 167 comments. Past behavior shows exact sub-package jumps, robotic growth, and abnormal timing precision. Please audit this channel for repeated manipulation.

Option F:

On April 23, Livecounts recorded 519,997 views but only 16 new subscribers for NineStar Studios. The steady view growth without real audience engagement fits known drip-feed bot patterns. Their BLANK EP.1 gained 902K views but had barely any comments or likes. The channel has a documented history of bot sub packages, prolonged sub freezes, and mechanical view growth. Please investigate.

Option G:

April 23 monitoring shows 519,997 views gained but only 16 subscribers in 12 hours — an extreme anomaly. The growth pattern matches drip-fed fake engagement. Combined with BLANK EP.1 showing 902K views and only 0.3% like/comment ratio, and past evidence of bot traffic bursts and stalled organic growth, this raises serious concerns. Please review.

Following Up on Your Report

After you submit your report, consider these steps:

Monitor the Channel's Activity

Watch for any changes in the channel's behavior and whether YouTube takes action based on your report. Share this information with others to keep everyone updated.

Encourage Others to Report

Share this post with others and encourage them to submit reports as well. A united front can increase the chances of action being taken.

Stay Informed

Keep up to date with YouTube's community guidelines and policies. This knowledge will help you navigate the reporting process effectively in the future. In addition, make sure to follow fellow fan accounts on X. The team of data analysts are still keeping track of the channel and monitoring all suspicious activity. They are actively collecting more and more evidence, and have committed to sharing the information to be used in future reports to make sure the reports are as detailed and concrete as possible.

Potential Outcomes of Reporting

When you report a channel, various outcomes may occur:

Review and Investigation

YouTube could initiate an investigation based on your report. If they identify misconduct, the channel may face consequences.

Content Removal or Channel Suspension

Should the investigation find policy violations, YouTube may remove specific videos or suspend the channel entirely.

Feedback from YouTube

While feedback is not guaranteed, you may receive updates or queries from YouTube to clarify your report, providing an avenue for you to elaborate. Share this with others so that planning can be coordinated.

Taking Action Matters

Reporting the company’s channel for suspicious activities is essential for maintaining the platform's integrity and is an important step we all can take to reach our goals of this boycott. By gathering concrete evidence and following the reporting procedures, you can actively contribute to addressing their misleading practices.

Whether it's documenting unusual patterns or fostering community involvement, your efforts are valuable in promoting transparency online. Every action counts, and your vigilance not only protects consumers, holds the company accountable for their actions, but also encourages ethical behavior in the industry.

By reporting the company's use of bots to inflate their YouTube presence, we aren't just challenging dishonest tactics—we're holding them accountable. Every report sends a message that manipulation won't be tolerated, and it strengthens our boycott by cutting off one of their key platforms for influence and revenue. Together, our actions can expose the truth and amplify the impact of our collective stand.