[qmarchi]

Except for that you risk breaking laws in several jurisdictions if you don't. And you can't fall back to "manual" enforcement think of the massive capital of human resources you'd have to invest in to make it keep up with the upload rate of YouTube.

[prmoustache]

If it is not sustainable, the service shouldn't be run.

[CamperBob2]

Except for that you risk breaking laws in several jurisdictions if you don't.

Why isn't the market addressing this? Why doesn't someone start a video service in the US and for the US -- one that follows US law, and not Pakistan's or Iran's or India's or Germany's or anyone else's?

Oh, right, because then they can't sell ads in those places, or use them as tax shelters. Silly question, I guess.

By forcing compliance with oppressive regimes (and with pearl-clutching sponsors in less-oppressive ones), advertising will eventually end everything good about the Internet. If you work in that business, you're the problem. Consider a different career.

[gooosle]

Give me a single example of laws in any jurisdiction that require this user to be banned.

There was absolutely no reason to ban in this case and you know it. If there was one video where rules were unintentionally broken, and the user has no history of that before, you remove the video, not completely ban the user.