We thought it would take some sort of super AI to take over the world just make arbitrary / unfair at face value / decisions that can't be appealed or undone.... naw we just needed companies like Google.

Both AI and bureaucracy are sufficiently opaque enough to be indistinguishable when it comes to ascertaining their decision making processes.

I think for Google at this point we can be sure, there simply isn't a decision making process. Nobody is deciding things, nobody is responding, it's just a black hole where a process leads to and ends.

/Dev/null/goog

Seems like Google is actually worse than most bureaucracies now in terms of getting a review of an individual bad decision.

With Google, it's like, here have an email.

This was the future that 40 years of cyberpunk was trying to warn us about.

Just another government function outsourced to the private sector.

I'd say that Google is synonymous with hubris. Their unexamined but faulty trust in their ability to create automated systems that don't require manual intervention or customer service is one main application of it.

OP is just wrong here. Copyright strikes don't go through content ID, and anyway nobody at YouTube is responsible or should be (per DMCA law) to decide what's infringement. If there's a dispute it can go to court.

Yeah OP is wrong about the AI part but of course YouTube is responsible: they have allowed bad actors to keep gaming their strike system for years.

YouTube is personally liable if they reject valid DMCA notices. The only way to keep the safe harbor and guarantee immunity is to follow the DMCA process. You're suggesting they voluntarily give up protections to hurt bad actors.

They are not required by DMCA to nuke you after 3 strikes, and they are allowed to keep the content if you file a counter-notice. Neither really works with YouTube. This IS on Google.

They're required to block repeat infringers, which is reasonably taken to mean 3.

They accept and process counter-notices. Going to disagree with you that they don't work.

The article disproves your opinion. They are, with no punishment to bad actors, i.e. there's no 3 strike for absolutely false copyright claims, stealing money from content creators and violating the copyrights of content creators. If anything they should lose their safe harbor for facilitating copyright infringement due to their 3 strikes system that has no way to circumvent the false claims. Even if you file a counter notice, the claims are often upheld unless there's a massive outcry. Bad publicity should not be the only recourse for bad actors.

>They are, with no punishment to bad actors, i.e. there's no 3 strike for absolutely false copyright claims

This would, in fact, cause them to lose their safe harbor under DMCA. There is no provision to simply ignore claims.

>stealing money from content creators and violating the copyrights of content creators.

Who's copyright is being violated? What money is being stolen?

>they should lose their safe harbor for facilitating copyright infringement due to their 3 strikes system that has no way to circumvent the false claims.

I strongly recommend that you actually read the DMCA.

The safe harbor is given to the service provider for accepting DMCA notices, and protects them from suits from the complainant. There's a separate safe harbor against claims from the uploader, and they get that by accepting counter-notices. But there's no obligation to accept counternotices, since they can delete videos at any time per their terms. So there's no relevant safe harbor they would lose here.

You've provided no source for the claim that they often reject valid counternotices. I don't believe this is the case.

There is no AI to resolve contested copyright claims. It just sits in Google's queue for weeks because Google refuses to hire enough employees to resolve issues in a timely manner. "Computers taking jobs" would arguably be better because then somebody would do the job, instead of the job just not being done at all.

ContentID is their AI. And of course it doesn't resolve anything - "AI" being opaque and unpredictable by definition - but parent wasn't saying that computers would do a better job than humans, just that they'd be a lot more convenient.

Google has no incentive to do better. There's some hubris involved, but there's also a lot of sociopathic indifference.

A class action suit might give it the motivation it needs to start behaving responsibly.

There's no such queue. Where are you getting that from?