“Impersonating an historical event”? If this is from YT, I wouldn’t read too much into it. Semantically, it’s nonsense, which is obvious enough . . . a phrase worthy of the products of 21st-century American edgykayshun or the non-English-speaking overseas workers to whom our tech firms often outsource their work.
In most cases, I doubt anyone at YT watches videos before they’re taken down. More likely, most or all of the process is automated, from scanning the videos for heretical words, to taking the videos off the site, to sending the form emails out. Even if a human listened to the video, he probably just looked down a preset list of “offenses” and, finding nothing to charge the account holder with, picked whatever category might conceivably have something vaguely to do with the video’s content.
The significance here is the censorship itself and the actual reason for it, not the proffered excuse. The question is: What were the verboten words, phrases, or topics in these videos? Or, if there were none, is this just an intimidation tactic meant to discourage the interviewer, interviewee, or both, from covering the kinds of subjects they cover?
In other news . . . the many-tentacled bearer bonds story is interesting indeed!
