Why “THE CRYPTO PONZI SCHEME AVENGER” Violates YouTube’s Own Rules

Subject: Danny De Hek (a.k.a. “The Crypto Ponzi Scheme Avenger”)

• Last updated: 19 Oct 2025

• Introduction
• 1) Targeted Harassment
• 2) Dehumanizing Language
• 3) Incitement of Brigading
• 4) Privacy Violations
• 5) Content Theft & Misuse
• Why This Matters for Regulators
• FAQs
• Sources & Viewer-Verifiable Clips

Introduction

Danny De Hek, known online as “THE CRYPTO PONZI SCHEME AVENGER,” brands himself as a fearless fighter against fraud. However, our investigation of public livestreams and posts documents patterns that, in our view, conflict with YouTube’s Community Guidelines and international standards on harassment and privacy. This analysis consolidates viewer-verifiable segments and policy references.

Reference: UN Guide on Countering Online Hate Speech (2023).

Why “THE CRYPTO PONZI SCHEME AVENGER” Violates YouTube’s Own Rules

Public branding vs. platform rules — this report prioritizes on-record, viewer-verifiable material.

1) Targeted Harassment

• Interrupting private online meetings without consent.
• Unsolicited phone calls during livestreams to intimidate individuals.
• Naming and shaming people without verified evidence.

These behaviors align with YouTube’s harassment & cyberbullying prohibitions and overlap with several countries’ anti-stalking laws.
Example: Private number called and broadcast publicly — timestamp 49:04.

2) Dehumanizing Language

Across multiple videos, derogatory labels like “animals,” “mongrels,” and “bottom feeders” are used. This is incompatible with YouTube’s Hate Speech and Dehumanization policy.

Example: Repeated slurs such as “filthy bottom feeders” and “trailer trash” — timestamp 33:32.

3) Incitement of Brigading

Directing viewers to contact companies and individuals off-platform, flood inboxes, leave hostile reviews, or mass-report content constitutes brigading — explicitly disallowed by YouTube.

Examples: 06:48 • 1:18:05

4) Privacy Violations

Several streams reference collecting personal data (names, phone numbers) to “go after” targets — behavior that risks breaching YouTube’s Privacy Policy and may implicate GDPR and CCPA.

Example: Meeting hijack + urging 1-star reviews while sharing private links — 05:07.

5) Content Theft & Misuse

Reports indicate re-uploads or uncredited use of others’ content, potentially violating copyright (Content ID). Beyond platform policy, this raises intellectual-property concerns.

Related clip: Investors called “idiots” and a medical condition mocked, including “cause strokes” claim — 04:31.

Why This Matters for Regulators

• Digital Harassment Laws: US/UK/EU frameworks criminalize online harassment and stalking.
• Privacy Protection: Collecting personal data without consent can trigger data-protection investigations.
• Defamation & False Claims: Unverified allegations targeting individuals or companies carry civil-liability risk.

FAQs (Danny De Hek / Dehek)

Is “Dehek” the same as “Danny De Hek” and “The Crypto Ponzi Scheme Avenger”?

Yes — users search multiple spellings. This page targets “Dehek,” “De Hek,” and the channel alias for findability.

Does YouTube allow doxxing or broadcasting private numbers?

No. Publishing personal data and targeted harassment can violate YouTube’s privacy/harassment policies and local laws.

Is organizing viewers to mass-report or leave 1-star reviews permitted?

No. Coordinated harassment (brigading) is disallowed and can lead to enforcement actions.

Sources & Viewer-Verifiable Clips

1. Clip 1 — live call to a private number
2. Clip 2 — dehumanizing slurs
3. Clip 3 — call to 1-star reviews
4. Clip 4 — meeting hijack
5. Clip 5 — sharing private links
6. Clip 6 — mocking a medical condition
7. Policy reference: UN Guide on Countering Online Hate Speech (2023)