Muscle Mommy Sponsored by BIG CHICKEN

[his own words] this is orange flavor creatine I we made a video on Creatine a couple years ago now which was pretty heavily Shadow Bann cuz I explained like it's bad for your kidneys when bad for your organ system can cause hair loss would never take creatine it's not worth it

Platform suppression is a recurring grievance family on this channel and is tracked as the Reddit litigation and the TikTok / ByteDance litigation. This is a datable instance of the claim — a specific video, a specific subject, a specific asserted consequence. It is Context, not Moderate, and deliberately so: no platform is named as a wrongdoer, no action is threatened or described, and the claim is about a creatine video, which matches no pleaded grievance anywhere in the dataset. It is included because it dates the shadowbanning complaint to April 2024, not because it links to a case.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

[his own words] oh hopefully maybe she has her address or PO box or something in the comments we can send her some steaks bro

recorded specifically so a later keyword pass cannot misclassify it, and the call is argued in Research Notes. On its face this is the channel owner speculating aloud about obtaining an identifiable woman's mailing address from a comment section — the surface form of the pattern §4h exists to catch. It is not that pattern, on five independent grounds: the stated purpose is sending free product; no viewer is asked to do anything (the "we" is his established solo-vlogger first person); no address, handle, channel name or identifier is disclosed or requested from the audience; nothing suggests it was acted on; and he retracts it himself at 23:41 — "she's got 700,000 subscribers she doesn't need any free meat bro." It is closest in shape to wave 1's Costco-chargebacks near-miss: an instruction-shaped aside that never becomes an ask and is never returned to except to withdraw it.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

[his own words] oh God every one of these videos always has these like such fake shill comments [reading — a viewer's comment from HER video] KY is an incredible person Len I've seen one of her Vlogs where she talks about how she really wants to look after her family and achieve her goals she's a responsible and motivated individual as well I wish I could be like her lots of love for like [his own words resume] all right maybe I'm just being mean but it is that a real comment even if I paid someone to put that on my video they wouldn't type that

"Shill" is C040's own keyword, and this is one of the few places in the researched videos where the captioner renders it correctly — earlier research on this channel recorded that captions routinely mangle it to "corporate shells" / "corporate chills", which hides C040's central term from caption searches. C040 (Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators, M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-00846, part of the Shopify / business-platform conspiracy litigation) was filed 2024-05-22, thirty-eight days after this video, and its pleaded theory involves paid actors coordinating against his business. But the usage here is the opposite of the pleaded one, and no link is drawn: he is describing sincere-looking praise on a stranger's fitness video as probably purchased, with no reference to his own business, no coordination, no named actor and no grievance — the right word attached to the wrong grievance. Recorded as a lexical datapoint (that he uses "shill" this way, in this period, 38 days before C040), not as evidence.

Why this classification: He applies the word 'shill' to sincere-looking praise in a stranger's fitness-video comment section, with no reference to his own business, no named actor and no filing of any kind, so it is recorded as a dated use of the term rather than as evidence about any dispute.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote