What was supposed to be a celebratory moment for the community turned into something far uglier.
Following the release of the long-requested Level 16 and hero updates, Supercell decided to spread some very particular “holiday cheer”: mass copyright strikes against YouTube creators who dared to be critical. One of those actions culminated in the complete deletion of a channel with over 450,000 subscribers.
The alleged crime?
Being critical of Supercell.
Silencing Critics Through Copyright
Creators have begun avoiding even showing Supercell-owned imagery out of fear. That alone should set off alarms. Gameplay footage, criticism, parody, and commentary are widely understood to fall under fair use when they are transformative. Yet Supercell appears to be exploiting YouTube’s copyright system to bypass debate entirely and go straight to punishment.
This is not about protecting intellectual property.
This is about controlling the narrative.
A creator can lose livestreaming privileges with just one strike. Three strikes mean permanent termination, with no ability to start over. That kind of power, when used selectively, creates an environment where creators are effectively held hostage.
The Eric OneHive Case: From Partner to Target
The most severe example is Eric OneHive, a Clash of Clans creator who spent seven years building a channel centered entirely around Supercell’s ecosystem.
In a short period of time, his channel was hit with 11 copyright strikes—an absurd number by any standard—triggering automatic deletion.
This didn’t happen in a vacuum. About a year earlier, Eric publicly criticized Supercell for how it treated smaller creators facing copyright abuse. In response, his creator code was removed and he received earlier strikes. Now, the escalation is complete: his channel is gone.
Whether you like Eric or not is irrelevant.
Even if you find him annoying.
Even if you disagree with his tone.
Copyright abuse is never justified.
If a company can retroactively erase seven years of work because it dislikes criticism, it can do that to anyone.
No Warnings. No Dialogue. Just the Nuclear Option
What makes this worse is the total lack of proportionality.
There were:
- No takedown requests
- No prior communication
- No attempt at mediation
Just immediate, irreversible action.
That isn’t moderation. That’s retaliation.
Smaller Creators Aren’t Safe Either
This behavior doesn’t stop at large channels.
A smaller creator posted a satirical meme video mocking the Clash Royale Level 16 update. It used minimal gameplay footage as background B-roll and was clearly parody. Still, it was copyright struck and removed.
At the time, the creator had roughly 1,000 subscribers. The video briefly became the most-hyped video in the U.S., rapidly growing the channel—until Supercell erased it.
One more strike or two, and that entire channel would have been gone.
Size doesn’t protect you.
History with the company doesn’t protect you.
Only silence does.
“Fan Content Policy” or Corporate Kill Switch?
Supercell hides behind its fan content policy, which includes this key line:
They reserve the right to revoke the limited use license at any time, for any reason.
Translated into plain language:
They decide which fans are allowed to exist.
Some rules make sense—no cheats, hacks, or leaks. But the clauses used here are far more subjective, including bans on “defamatory” statements about employees or products. That ambiguity allows criticism to be reframed as policy violations at will.
Even if a video did cross a line, the responsible approach would be a takedown request—not mass strikes designed to annihilate a channel.
Follow the Ownership Trail
Supercell operates under Tencent, a corporation widely known for aggressive censorship practices.
Tencent also owns or has stakes in:
- Epic Games
- Riot Games
- Krafton
That context matters. This isn’t an isolated decision by one studio. It reflects a broader corporate culture that prioritizes control over dialogue.
Terrible PR, Worse Ethics
This approach damages everyone:
- Creators lose livelihoods
- Communities lose voices
- Games lose trust
Video game communities thrive because creators amplify them. It’s more accurate to say that game companies owe content creators than the other way around. Games are nothing without their communities, and creators are the community.
Recent engagement spikes in Clash Royale were widely credited to content creators. That resurgence didn’t happen in a vacuum.
Drawing the Line
Some monetization practices can be ignored.
Some balance changes can be debated.
But using copyright law as a censorship weapon crosses a line.
Creators are now deleting Supercell content preemptively—not because they violated policy, but because they’re afraid. That alone proves the system is broken.
If Supercell has an issue with content, it should engage honestly, request removals properly, and respect fair use. Anything else is intimidation.
And the only message companies like this truly understand is financial.
No trust.
No goodwill.
No money.
Final Thought
Censorship doesn’t look like a ban button at first.
It looks like silence.
Fear.
Self-censorship.
When criticism becomes dangerous, the problem isn’t the critics—it’s the power structure.
Supercell didn’t just delete videos.
They sent a message.
The question is whether the community listens—or pushes back.
The Immoral List 
Leave a comment