YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability
I think the &quot;oh no human moderation would cost us too much&quot; defense is a distraction.  It&#x27;s a good one, because it is working, but it is still a distraction.<p>Let us suppose we have a program which checks for orthodoxy according to the YouTube Terms of Service against each video submitted.<p>Nothing but a lack of having done the work prevents YouTube from adding to its &quot;rejected&quot; flag the following:<p>1) A list of timestarts and durations of the portions of the video violating the ToS.
2) For each item in that list, make it a tuple and add a <i>reason</i> -- which clause was violated?<p>Then outputting that to the owner of the rejected video.<p>Nothing stops them from doing this.  <i>Some</i> set of words or images happened somewhere in the timestream -- the orthodoxy program has that timestamp as it churns through the video.  And a specific clause was violated -- a particular word in a wordlist as an example, because there&#x27;s no simple, non-composite function that just says &quot;good or not good.&quot;<p>This is really not a particularly high bar as an ask.