>>22744923>>22744924maybe I was being unclear, but what I meant was that youtube wasn't the cause for this alleged subtraction of subs referenced.
Youtube does cull subscribers that don't fit the criteria of a real viewer, that happens to all channels.
And yes, there might have been a cull of subscribers during her being at 3.92, but neither we or any site that tracks her will know about that unless it would drop to 3.91.
So the claim that she dropped x and increased y based on a site that is showing exact subscriber numbers is just false. It's as I said, an estimate.
