Rich Lund

@TeamYouTube Why have us verify the video only *after* being published, and *after* the problem has happened? Can't we have some benefit of the doubt, until we demonstrate we don't deserve it?

@TeamYouTube For example, say someone verifies the vid is ad friendly, then it gets flagged, and a manual review requested. Upon manual review, it IS deemed "not suitable". That YouTuber could get a strike. We have such strikes for copyright claims and such. Why not this?

@TeamYouTube If a YouTuber shows evidence of verifying vids that shouldn't be verified, *then* their videos could lose ad privileges. This system seems logical, would solve the current problem for the innocent YouTuber, and keep sponsors happy too.

@TeamYouTube We're supposedly partners. Why aren't we treated that way? Also, with this idea, YouTube itself would stop losing out on potential revenue. Please. Discuss this. Don't keep us in the dark. Tell us something. Let us know you care. Thank you.

Appreciate your sending us your feedback on this. Our systems need millions of human-reviewed data points to improve and that takes time, with every video it understand nuances better. Please continue to appeal as this helps.

Hey @TeamYouTube, I want to thank you for a genuine reply that didn't just suggest I request a manual review. That truly is appreciated very much. And what you state makes logical sense. The system needs time and data to learn. *Perfectly* reasonable.

@TeamYouTube Can I point out one more thing to be considered, though: In a roundabout way, you are also stating that your system is still learning, and isn't where it needs to be yet. If it's flagging a science video that has no talking, nothing even close to questionable...

@TeamYouTube ...then it's quite far away from being ready to do the job it's intended to do. I agree, it needs practice to learn. But in the meantime, *while it's learning*, should it be implemented to do a job it's not ready for yet?