The video was restored because of the noise the takedown created. Small creators have no voice and for every big channel that can ignite a PR backlash there are potentially thousands that would disappear without trace or chances to be restored. YouTube has been unreliable for years, but AI just makes it even more so; how could one base their business on such an unprofessional and unstable partner that appears managed by kids with too much power in their hands? An alternative is badly needed asap.
> Rich appealed both immediately. The first appeal was denied in 45 minutes. The second in just five.
> The platform claimed its "initial actions" (could be either the first takedown or appeal denial, or both) were not the result of automation.
If they claim that a non automated review occurred but then still took down/denied appeal, what caused them to change course?
What is your source that the restoration of the video was not because of the noise?
Pattern recognition, an innate skill in most humans. When most bogus takedowns are not reversed, but the more people you see talking about them, the more likely they are to get reversed, you can easily see the pattern.
