On the 23rd, Xabier Vila-Coia received a message from YouTube stating that his channel, which would turn fifteen in November, had been terminated. The reason cited: “serious or repeated violations” of community guidelines related to nudity or sexual content. This mirrors a broader pattern where artists faced online censorship, and it signals that self-censorship has become a common precaution for maintaining a digital presence.
“It felt like an abrupt retreat,” says Vigo, a political scientist, anthropologist, and artist. He notes that normally a creator receives up to three warnings before an action is taken, but if a violation is deemed “serious” by the platform, the channel can be removed immediately, as happened in Vila-Coia’s case.
While Vila-Coia points to La Purísima Concepción as a potential trigger, the three-and-a-half-minute video featuring sexual imagery—part of a practical work for that project—was not explicitly cited by the channel as the cause. The work is connected to the Subject Perspectives of Contemporary Aesthetics of the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM) Philosophy degree.
Vila-Coia challenged the decision but his appeal was unsuccessful. The shutdown recurred a few days later. He does not deny that the video’s content is provocative and potentially controversial. In fact, controversy had already erupted when he presented it in December 2021, generating tension between Vila-Coia and his instructor and peers. He maintains that the video is an artistic piece, not pornographic, and therefore should not violate platform rules.
In YouTube’s policy framework, content involving “representation of the genitals, breasts or buttocks (implicit or explicit) to incite sexual pleasure” or “pornography or sexual acts, including fetishes intended to provoke pleasure” is disallowed. Institutions such as the MACBA in Barcelona, the British Library, and the National Library of France are cited as cultural references in discussions about artistic content.
Vila-Coia describes the channel’s closure as arbitrary, excessive, and unfair, noting that nearly fifteen years of work—almost 300 videos, half a million views, and over 1,800 subscribers—are now inaccessible. He argues that not only the videos, but also the titles and descriptive texts constitute his work, and as a citizen he should have access to a copy of his material even if the channel cannot be broadcast again.
The artist emphasizes that the channel helped turn a personal presence into an official artist channel. He questions the distinction between strictly pornographic imagery and artistic content that may be contextually sensitive but not pornographic.
Vila-Coia also contends with a perceived violation of his freedom of expression. He argues that artistic creation should not be constrained; if a creator accepts restrictive conditions, the result is not true art, and the terminology should reflect that distinction.
Regarding the possibly offending video, he explains that it was crafted within a defined set of creative parameters and that its meaning becomes clear only after reading the end credits, including translated Latin phrases. This is not Vila-Coia’s first experience with censorship: in 2011, the Complutense University of Madrid removed his exhibition “213 Aphorisms for the 21st Century” from a program just days before it opened.
Madrid-based Galician poet Antonino Nieto and Argentine director Fernando Menéndez Carbone have publicly expressed solidarity with Vila-Coia in the wake of the channel’s closure.
In the hands of algorithms
Víctor Salgado, a lawyer specializing in ICT law, cautions that more people are discovering how social networks profile content that fails to align with platform policies. He notes that sudden waves of account cancellations or blocks can disrupt access not only to personal profiles but also to cloud content, mail, and overall digital presence.
According to Salgado, many cancellations appear arbitrary and rely on foreign regulations, with algorithms often driving the decisions rather than human review. He cites cases where parents were wrongly accused of child pornography because of misinterpreted content or words used in criticism, leading to account closures. Citizens face increasing vulnerability to these automated systems, which makes the right to free expression more fragile.
Salgado recognizes that challenging platforms is difficult. To prevent future shutdowns, users increasingly resort to self-censorship, though this does not guarantee ongoing safety. As algorithms evolve, today’s censorship may not align with tomorrow’s standards.
He describes platform policies as vague and filled with loopholes, yet acknowledges that reversing bans is slow and challenging. The initial step is to engage directly with the platform. Courts are typically a last resort for ordinary citizens due to resource limitations. He recommends issuing formal burofax requests through a law firm as a practical tactic, while hoping that European AI regulations will provide stronger tools to defend individuals against platform overreach.