I don’t envy them on the work they need to do… but I do think the more effort and attention they put on this, the better.
Similarly to Youtube policy reviewers (horrible name, I’m imagining a 1984-like scene with a huge building with an open floor plan and a ton of desks akin to Ministry of Truth), Google has had humans assessing ad quality and landing page quality in ads to try to determine whether it’s legally safe to show an ad to a user from a particular country, or how you may or may not want to rank this page in the search results (or if you want to show it at all) … Oh the stories I’ve heard. For example, if I remember correctly, in Germany there’s a legal precedent where an angle of a penis matters in determining whether the content is sexual in nature, or just medical; applying that particular rule in Netherlands or any of the scandinavian countries would apparently be unfair (thus exposing the company to legal risk there, … or legal risk in Germany if you don’t apply it, but IANAL, soo take it with a grain of salt). Then there’s sports betting, apparently perfectly fine in the UK, you can see bookies sponsoring soccer teams, it is outlawed in the US, except Nevada. What if the website is one jurisdiction, user in another, who knows where the server is with all the traffic balancing… and which server is it with microservices, the one where connection is terminated and http turned into rpc, one that determines which ad to serve or not serve, one that does the search for an add, or one that is the central repository of this ad “creative” / content… PITA to figure out.
On top of the legal dictated policy, there’s policies stemming from company brand/image where Google can (in some cases… debatable) exercise their discretionary rights, e.g. something that is in bad taste according to the company culture, maybe shouldn’t be served from the servers of the company. What’s discretionary, what’s not and what applies where is another thing.
And then on top of that, you have these reviewers personal backgrounds and biases and judgements and which side of the bed they got up on, you’re trying to trade off reviewing as many things as possible as quickly as possible with review quality (e.g. how many different people review any single thing, what if they disagree?).
And then there’s people writing “algorithms” (more like code that burns cycles on neural networks)" that either assist reviews or take them over entirely, that are basically secret sauce, because they allow some number of human reviewers to scale to being able to do much much more work that normally (providing competitive advantage), and worse than that, if they’re made public would allow for bad actors to “game them”, in a hard to notice or hard to recover from way. Those “algorithms” are by definition imperfect, but the idea is they’re probably worth running.
Then there’s a bunch of people whose job is to figure out when someone from the russian “internet research agency” or the likes tries to exploit things and do fake news like stuff, and they try to be ahead of them, shows up with fake internet personas and submits net neutrality comments or retweets a whole bunch of trump tweets.
As I said, I don’t envy those youtube reviewers, making a platform where anyone can do anything would not be a good thing IMHO, there’s lots that goes into making things work the way everyone thinks things should work for them, and it gets real complicated real fast.