When Ryan Naumenko's latest investigation disappeared from YouTube within hours of being posted, it marked the second time in 48 hours that Australia's public broadcaster had successfully pressured the platform to remove content.
For many Australians watching this unfold, it raises uncomfortable questions about who really controls the flow of information in our digital age.
The Melbourne-based crime reporter, who runs the independent Outlaw Media outlet, had uploaded a video making serious claims about an ABC personality.
Within minutes, it vanished—leaving only the familiar 'This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines' message that has become all too common in today's online landscape.
The man behind the microphone
Naumenko has been 'leading the charge in uncovering the gritty details of gangland activities since June 2024' through his completely self-funded operation.
Unlike the well-resourced newsrooms of traditional media, he operates under constant threat, having 'put our lives on the line, risking not just our own safety but that of our families too' with 'even an attempt on us by an unknown crew lurking near our home'.
The financial reality of independent journalism in Australia is stark. As Naumenko told reporters earlier this year, he has 'never been offered a cent' for his work and has 'never bothered to monetise the content for the simple reason of wanting the facts to be made available, easily and quickly.'
His operation involves paying 'for solid tips from the community, for verified info, and to get crucial CCTV footage of these violent acts' - costs that are 'a lot more than you could imagine'.
Meanwhile, he's been documenting 'groups terrorising innocent folks through shakedowns at local shops and devastating firebombings across Victoria'.
'Death wish—I don't really see it that way. The world has become soft, the next generation after us thinks that life is a game of Fortnite. Life is about survival. Speaking truth.'
A troubling pattern emerges
The removal of Naumenko's video wasn't an isolated incident. Just two days earlier, the ABC had successfully pressured YouTube to remove a 42-minute historical radio segment posted by economist John Adams. That clip, from a 50-year-old Lateline program about pederasty, was viewed 23,000 times before disappearing around 9:30pm on the same day it was uploaded.
The ABC's response was swift and legally aggressive. They sent Adams a legal warning just two minutes before he published the content, stating: 'We understand you intend to publish ABC content on YouTube at 5pm today. In the ABC's view, doing so would pose a serious risk to victims and would therefore be inappropriate.'
The broadcaster declared the decades-old segment posed 'a risk of harm to the community' and should never have been conducted. While the disturbing nature of that particular content might justify removal, the rapid-fire pattern of takedowns raises broader questions about media power in the digital age.
The new censorship landscape
What we're witnessing represents a fundamental shift in how information flows in Australia. Major media organisations now wield the ability to quickly silence independent voices through copyright claims and platform pressure—a power that would have been unimaginable in the pre-digital era.
How content removal works
When large organisations claim copyright infringement or community guideline violations, platforms like YouTube typically err on the side of caution and remove content first, asking questions later. This 'shoot first' approach means independent creators often lose their audience immediately, even if they're later vindicated.
For Australian viewers over 60 who remember when media diversity meant having multiple newspapers in each city, this concentration of removal power in the hands of major players represents a concerning development. The barriers to entry for independent journalism have never been lower, but the barriers to staying online are increasingly controlled by established interests.
What this means for media consumers
The implications extend far beyond one reporter's investigation. When independent journalists like Naumenko can be silenced within hours, it reduces the diversity of voices in Australia's media landscape. This is particularly significant given the ongoing challenges facing traditional newsrooms, with many having reduced their investigative capacity due to budget constraints.
Independent reporters often cover stories that mainstream media overlooks or can't access. Naumenko's work documenting organised crime's impact on ordinary businesses—from shop shakedowns to firebombings [5] - represents exactly the kind of accountability journalism that serves the public interest.
Press freedom in the digital age
- Large organisations can quickly silence independent voices through platform pressure
- Copyright and community guideline claims are increasingly used to control information flow
- Independent journalists face immediate audience loss when content is removed
- Media diversity suffers when established players can easily silence smaller voices
The cost of speaking truth
The financial burden of staying safe while reporting on organised crime is 'sky-high' [6], with Naumenko having spent 'tens of thousands of dollars on security improvements, car changes, plus the constant moving around' just to survive long enough to tell important stories.
This creates a troubling dynamic where independent journalists must not only navigate physical dangers but also the risk of having their digital platforms pulled out from under them by organisations with superior legal resources.
Looking ahead
While the ABC has remained silent about whether it specifically requested Naumenko's video removal, the pattern is clear. In an era where information can be shared instantly, the power to remove it has become equally swift and decisive.
For Australian media consumers, particularly those who remember when diverse viewpoints were more readily available, these developments signal a need for greater awareness about who controls the information we receive and how quickly that control can be exercised.
The question isn't whether the ABC was right or wrong in any specific case, but whether the current system allows for sufficient diversity of voices and adequate protection for independent journalism that serves the public interest.
What are your thoughts on the balance between content moderation and press freedom? Have you noticed changes in the diversity of news sources available to you? Share your observations in the comments below.
Primary Source
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tes-aired-counter-culture-crime-reporter.html
Fundraiser by Ryan Naumenko : Help Outlaw Media Grow!
Cited text: Hey everyone, by now you're probably aware that Outlaw Media has been leading the charge in uncovering the gritty details of gangland activities since...
Excerpt: Naumenko has been 'leading the charge in uncovering the gritty details of gangland activities since June 2024' through his completely self-funded operation
https://www.gofundme.com/f/outlaw-media
Fundraiser by Ryan Naumenko : Help Outlaw Media Grow!
Cited text: Outlaw Media is completely self-funded, with no handouts or thanks from the mainstream media.
Excerpt: Naumenko has been 'leading the charge in uncovering the gritty details of gangland activities since June 2024' through his completely self-funded operation
https://www.gofundme.com/f/outlaw-media
Fundraiser by Ryan Naumenko : Help Outlaw Media Grow!
Cited text: We've put our lives on the line, risking not just our own safety but that of our families too. There was even an attempt on us by an unknown crew lurk...
Excerpt: he operates under constant threat, having 'put our lives on the line, risking not just our own safety but that of our families too' with 'even an attempt on us by an unknown crew lurking near our home'
https://www.gofundme.com/f/outlaw-media
Fundraiser by Ryan Naumenko : Help Outlaw Media Grow!
Cited text: We pay for solid tips from the community, for verified info, and to get crucial CCTV footage of these violent acts. This all costs a lot more than you...
Excerpt: His operation involves paying 'for solid tips from the community, for verified info, and to get crucial CCTV footage of these violent acts' - costs that are 'a lot more than you could imagine'
https://www.gofundme.com/f/outlaw-media
Fundraiser by Ryan Naumenko : Help Outlaw Media Grow!
Cited text: We've not only put a spotlight on those targeting other underworld figures but also on the groups terrorizing innocent folks through shakedowns at loc...
Excerpt: he's been documenting 'groups terrorising innocent folks through shakedowns at local shops and devastating firebombings across Victoria'
https://www.gofundme.com/f/outlaw-media
Fundraiser by Ryan Naumenko : Help Outlaw Media Grow!
Cited text: The cost to keep us safe? Sky-high.
Excerpt: The financial burden of staying safe while reporting on organised crime is 'sky-high'
https://www.gofundme.com/f/outlaw-media
Seniors Discount Club
Latest Articles
-
When Halloween horror goes too far: Parents push back against ‘graphic’ store displays
- Started by Maan
- Replies: 35
-
-
-
Treat your best mate to a better bowl: Black Hawk’s new High Meat Range is 25% off at Petstock
- Started by Aubrey Razon
- Replies: 0
-
The popular bowl everyone’s rushing to make—and why you can’t find cottage cheese anywhere
- Started by Maan
- Replies: 5
.png){kind=icon}
