The pro-establishment bloc blamed YouTube for being overzealous and accused Google of “blatantly” meddling in the city’s election. Some members said they would learn from the candidate’s bitter experience and turn to Chinese-backed social media platforms.

Since Lee announced his bid for the top post on April 9, he has been communicating mostly online with the Election Committee filled predominantly with pro-Beijing figures and carrying the meetings on his YouTube and Facebook channels.

But a check of his YouTube page on Wednesday morning found all content removed and replaced with a message stating: “This account has been terminated for violating Google’s terms of service.”

In response to a Post inquiry, a Google spokesman said the company “complies with applicable US sanctions laws and enforces related policies under its terms of service”.

“After review and consistent with these policies, we terminated the Johnlee2022 YouTube channel,” he added.

A spokesman for Meta, the social media giant that runs Facebook and Instagram, two other platforms on which Lee posts campaign messages, revealed hours later that the candidate only maintained a “demonetised presence” on the platforms, adding that it had also taken steps to prevent his use of payment services.

“If we identify accounts maintained by or on behalf of people on the US government’s list of specially designated nationals, we have a legal obligation to take certain action,” the spokesman said, referring to the term the White House uses to describe sanctioned individuals.

Lee said he was “disappointed” but maintained the move by YouTube would not affect his campaign and he would endeavour to get his message out using other channels.

He also hit out at the US government for imposing the sanctions on him in 2020, when he served as secretary for security.

“The so-called sanction imposed by the US government due to my work in safeguarding national security is unreasonable, bullying and deliberately wants to put pressure on me,” he said. “It will not make me hesitant, it only makes me believe what I am doing is correct.”

Campaign chief Tam Yiu-chung revealed Google notified Lee’s office in the morning and he called the termination of the channel “regretful”.

“The decision was so abrupt, and Google’s explanation is too simple,” he said. “It is totally unreasonable.”

A lawyer who specialises in American sanction laws noted YouTube had an obligation to comply with the government’s decision given the operator was based in the US. Although Lee might not have had any monetary transactions with the technology giant, the law prohibited the firm from offering anything of value to him.

“He opens up a free YouTube account. He never pays anything. He doesn’t get any [advertising] revenue from YouTube. But still, there is some transaction of value, right, the use of the services,” said the lawyer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

But senior counsel Ronny Tong Ka-wah, a top adviser to current Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, argued the sanctions law applied to financial institutions rather than social media companies.

“The move was so weird, as I did not see the campaign has anything related to economic terms or activities,” said Tong, also a member of Lee’s campaign presidium. “Lee might have to find some other more suitable channels to promote himself.”

Lawmaker Dominic Lee Tsz-king, who has more than 330,000 subscribers on YouTube, said the incident had made him reflect on whether he should make greater use of Chinese-owned platforms such as Weibo, Xiaohongshu or TikTok.

“I thought the US sanctions in 2020 only banned officials from having advertisements on YouTube, as the money generated by YouTube or the individuals might have infringed upon the laws,” he said. “But apparently Lee’s case shows that the ban is more than that. Probably YouTube is self-censoring.”

Pro-establishment lawmaker and solicitor Holden Chow Ho-ding called on the Hong Kong government to file a complaint with YouTube, given the account termination was “proof of foreign intervention in Hong Kong’s election”.

Lawmaker Priscilla Leung Mei-fun, who sits on the Basic Law Committee that advises the central government on Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, also hit out at Google for what she called its interference in local politics.

“Google is operating at and making profits from the People’s Republic of China’s Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and yet it is blatantly interfering with the fairness, impartiality and openness of the first chief executive poll following Beijing’s improvement of the electoral system,” she said.

Leung was referring to the central government’s overhaul of the electoral system last year to ensure only “patriots” held power, changes that critics claimed were aimed at stifling dissent.

Eric Lai Yan-ho, a research fellow at the Center for Asian Law at Georgetown University in the US, argued that Lee’s team should have been aware of the scope of the sanctions given the former official was targeted two years ago.

“His campaign team should have conducted due diligence and been aware of the political risks involved in using US platforms,” he said.

He argued that the controversy was just the latest example of how Western democracies were increasingly isolating Hong Kong, as they refused to accept that the city had maintained the same degree of autonomy following the introduction of the national security law and overhaul of its electoral system.

Lau Siu-kai, vice-president of the semi-official Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies think tank, said the incident showed how the US government employed economic sanctions as weapons.

“The case proves the weaponisation of the US financial system or related services, while big giants dare not to disobey under some political pressure,” he said. “It is quite expected that the US government and politicians would be more hostile to Hong Kong once Lee, who carries a background in disciplinary forces, is elected.”

Communications scholar Tsui Lok-man, a former head of free expression in Asia and the Pacific at Google, noted how rare the present situation was.

“Most sanctioned individuals are probably in countries that have YouTube blocked anyway,” Tsui said.

As of Wednesday, Lee’s campaign pages on Facebook and Instagram were operating normally. He was still showing his meeting with the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector of the committee in the afternoon.

Lee has been under US sanctions since 2020, along with at least a dozen former and current officials involved in the implementation of the national security law, which bans acts of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces.

Under the sanctions brought by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, the US-based assets of individuals or entities are blocked and Americans and businesses are generally prohibited from dealing with them.

While serving as security chief, Lee accused the US of being hypocritical in levelling the economic penalties, saying: “Maintaining national security is a matter of justice and duty. The United States wants to … intimidate, and it will not succeed.”

YouTube has been banned in mainland China since 2009 and it was among one of the first social media websites blocked by the Great Firewall of China, while Google China’s search engine launched in 2006 and was abruptly blocked in 2010.

Additional reporting by Tony Cheung