>>30219881>the backlash might have been from sponsorsYour post is suspiciously reasonable, on point, and perfectly explains all the discrepancies with the video being pulled. My rrat is that you're dropping insider info to clear things up. Looks like the advertising cartel wins again.
With that said, nobody outside the company thinks about the sponsors because that's a behind the scenes corporate matter. It'd be strange to conclude, without any evidence leading in that direction, that Cover must've pulled the video because a cabal of sponsors kneeled on their back. Also, unironically ranting about an evil cabal of hand-wringing advertisers being behind it would seem kind of deranged.
