[Someone]

The discussion isn’t about the initial flagging, it’s about the review.

That might be as simple as checking for the existence of legal documents claiming copyright infringement, or as reading a web page stating “we already removed X other copies of this file”.

Neither is a fail-safe way of doing such a review, but doing a thorough review might be expensive even for Google. Does anybody know how many such reviews they do each day?

It might also be a bug on their tooling to assist human reviewers.

[kelnos]

Right, but I believe for those cases, the (automated) email also said that the ability to appeal was not available. So there is no human review, because there's no review at all.

Regardless -- and I know this is a "how the world should be, not how it is" type thing -- I really think the initial decision should not be allowed to be made by an algorithm. At the very most, an algorithm should be allowed to flag something for human review, but no action is taken until the human has a chance to review it and decide if the flag is warranted or not.