93-year-old YouTuber back in business after being kicked off platform

Yet another instance of where the right thing is done by Google only if the journalists gets involved.

Capitalism is the new authoritarianism.

Disclaimer: Former Technical Solutions Engineer for GCP, aka Support for Customers. Also Former Engineer on YouTube Caching.

To get it out of the way, I do not agree that it should've taken a journalist to get involved to have this situation solved.

However, I'd like to prompt Hacker News with how would you handle receiving support requests from a product that has >2.7B users. Almost all of which are non-directly revenue generating, across hundreds of different languages, in every conceivable location in the world.

It's an extremely hard problem to solve, but I don't think anyone has got it right. I'll be playing devil's advocate in the comments. Keep me busy for my flights.

It is easy: Allocate the resources needed - hire more customer reps.

This would cut into margins, but maybe it is not possible to run hyper scale companies only managed by a couple of engineers.

And maybe we should not accept that profit seeking people want to do that anyways.

In this case, an entire channel was shut down (with no opportunity for appeal) on account of a single instance of someone zoom-bombing a live stream with pornography. Presumably the decision was entirely automated and there was no human in the loop.

It doesn't matter how many users you have. This "solution" seems like swatting a fly with a nuclear weapon. Why not just take down the offending video until the user takes corrective action? YouTube can clearly identify the offending video out of the non-offending ones, so that's not a technical problem. And it can be done entirely with automation, so it wouldn't need humans. Further, they obviously can tell that the user does not have a history or track record of this kind of activity. Why do these tech companies always go straight to the "no recourse ban hammer"?