I get responding to this with something like "YouTube's processes are broken." What doesn't make sense is "YouTube is happy to profit off human rights abuses."

I get responding to this with something like "YouTube's processes are broken." What doesn't make sense is "YouTube is happy to profit off human rights abuses." YT must deal with probably hundreds of new ads a day. They stand to gain nearly nothing from running this particular ad, and stand to lose quite a lot, even from a pure corporate-self-interest perspective. Which is more likely: that YT said "screw human rights abuses, gimme the cash" in full knowledge of what was going on, or that some contractor who had already reviewed a dozen that day and maybe hasn't even seen the news articles clicked a button without proper due diligence, and YT hadn't factored "what if a developed nation's government openly advertises human rights abuses" into its oversight processes?