> Determined to have his video restored, Bruno accepted the risks and sent another counternotice to YouTube. This time there was no indication that the countern

> Determined to have his video restored, Bruno accepted the risks and sent another counternotice to YouTube. This time there was no indication that the counternotice was deficient. YouTube thanked him for filing it – but still declined to process it. Uh, dealing with YouTube is fun on every level. Not long ago I was helping a successful content creator friend bootstrap a YouTube channel, and since she has a large number of existing videos, I wrote a program using YouTube Data API v3 to automatically upload them. Turned out the upload API has been restricted since a few years ago, one has to submit a lengthy application form and go through manual approval, or all videos uploaded through the API are automatically locked as spam. So I submitted the application, and a few days later, I got an email rejecting my application, which ends in the following: > To reapply, you may complete and submit the appropriate form once the above concerns have been addressed. Please do not reply to this email. > Feel free to reach out to us with any questions. So, I'm supposed to "feel free to reach out to" them, but I should "not reply to this email", leaving the only way to reach out to them the application form, which doesn't have any Q/A field, and incidentally they just rejected it. Did anyone think about their process when they authored that email template? Anyway, I eventually managed to identify the problem and pass the review.