this has happened to over the past 6 months, because I've been hearing stories about that long, but I didn't keep track of them. Now I'm trying to reconstruct a list of people this has happened to, in prep for writing a diary about it.
But as far as how to help these folks, yeah, there's things we can do, but people may not like them much.

The easiest, and least objectionable, is exactly what he said: watch his videos, spread the word, keep the story alive. That way maybe the hegemony will decide it's not worth pursuing the guy. This just worked fairly well for someone I like on Twitter, Nina Illingworth, who got shadowbanned after talking about Hillary Clinton, election fraud, and the Saudis. A lot of us hammered Twitter publicly, and the shadowban got taken away.

What we really need is a People's Press. IOW, we need independent media that is networked together--all the various websites and podcasts and bloggers and actual trained journalists need to be connected in a larger network. And--here's the part people won't like--what we're doing with fundraising for caucus? a lot more of us, like maybe all those 20 million or more who supported Bernie, need to be doing that for the entire network of indie media.

We were raising 40 or 50 million dollars a month during the campaign. That's not sustainable. But how about a quarter of that? Say we could raise 10 million dollars a month (all of us, together). That would be 120 million/year. What if we networked these indie media sites together--they'd still have total editorial and site management independence--and then pumped 120 mil/year into that network? Each site would get its share.

In fact, how about the 20 million or more people who supported Bernie--how about we OWN that network together, like the town of Green Bay, WI owns the Green Bay Packers? How about we each own a share in the network, in exchange for the dues we pay in? If/when the network ever becomes profitable--which it probably would become more so as the older forms of media become less popular--we might even, eventually, make a little money off of it in exchange for our investment. That may or may not ever happen. But what would be sure to happen is that we would get a lot more and better news for our money.

To get to the point of what's happening to this guy, a network like that would also provide for defense. Some of those millions could be spent on legal help for members. Also, if any member of the network was attacked, the entire network could light up in defense of their rights as journalists. That would be the only content requirement I'd have if I were on the board of such a thing: you have the right, as a member site, to publish anything you want, and you won't be required to publish anything by the network--EXCEPT if a member has come under attack, at which point all sites/members together start pushing stories about the attack on said member.

That's just the beginning of my thinking on this issue. This is the kind of thing a visible and trusted person like Sanders--or any number of his visible and trusted surrogates--could have set in motion, rather than fiddling around with the Democratic party's electoral games.

Because that's the issue: the reason we can't have this (we can't have nice things, heh) is simple: Who the hell am I, and why should anybody listen to me? Why should anybody trust me with their money? Why should Glenn Greenwald, who can't even be bothered to notice when I tell him that the words "liberal" and "Democrat" are not interchangeable, listen to me and accept the notion of making The Intercept a member of an indie media network?

Update/Edit: It occurs to me--though this would probably put people's backs up--that the network should maybe have a fact-checker as part of it. Likely this would step all over people's toes, but if we wanted to use indie media to provide good journalism, an important part of good journalism is being based on fact and reliable sources. It would be nice to have that be a principle to which member sites were dedicated.

but the problem was somebody who posted three consecutive anti-Clinton comments, each nastier than the last, harping on the Rothschilds and only the Rothschilds. The Clintons have a lot of unsavory friends of all persuasions - and they should all be publicly called out. No anti-favoritism of any kind (except anti-oligarchy in general - that's fair enough).

It might have been me. If so, it was because I have found in my travels around the left and right ends of the political blog/essays/comments spectrum, that antisemitism creeps in so easily. Jews don't rule the world and they are no more or less responsible for the evil in the world today. Evil knows no religion. I think everyone here knows that and respects that. My comment, if it was I, was motivated by, I think a common aspiration here, to steer dialogue away from the usual divide and conquer tactics of the oligarchy and to keep this space safe for all to contribute without ethnic hatred.