> I don't really see how this is any different now. Right now, blocking a video will lead to Google being unable to earn money from it. Their incentives are al

> I don't really see how this is any different now. Right now, blocking a video will lead to Google being unable to earn money from it. Their incentives are aligned with those of the video creator. > What you're arguing would happen is already happening No, right now you are not pressured into giving Google money to review their automated decisions. With the suggested system implemented, you might fork over $10 individually for each of your 452 videos and get humans picking mostly the same useless text block in response, not really helping you to understand their decision. You will feel kind of like now, except you notice that YT actually made more money by banning your videos and start to wonder if that is by design... Courts are great, but have to be independent. Even arbitration can be skewed in favor of bigger companies, since getting their recurring business is in the arbitrators interest. I'd still be in favor of setting up something like that for lower level decisions, but understand this can only happen if Google finds a way to stay out of the line of fire. And still keeps a way for them to overrule those third party decisions...