H3H3's case is pretty weak here. Even if it's true that this writer doctored some pictures he put up on Twitter, that wouldn't undermine his core claim. He claimed that racist trash was getting ad revenue, and then here H3H3 has demonstrated that, indeed, racist trash got ad revenue.
The picture on twitter isn't the "proof", it's an illustration. If dude saw an ad play while he was reporting the story, saved the URL, but then came back to it later to find it has been demonitized, doing a little photoshop to reconstruct what he'd seen isn't unreasonable. That wouldn't be great, for sure. Could be misleading if dates and view counts don't line up to the thing he actually witnessed. But that's sloppiness more than deception, because the core claim holds up.
Except it doesn't have to be 1 or 2 but apparently that's irrelevant since everyone has ignored that.
Also this. H3H3's evidence is interesting but I don't think definitive?