Google is OK with it because they do it to small spenders. They have human account managers and a very visible phone number if you spend enough. Not saying I agree with it, but it makes sense.
On the other side, Google semes very happy to spam me around once a once with offers of human help to restructure ads and so on. I took them up on this offer once, and it was a total waste of an hour - they were obviously going by script, and suggested changes that would increase my spend for no benefit. They also couldn't help at all with the one thing I actually wanted help with (increasing quality scores for obviously relevant content).
So they do have humans for the little people... but only to encourage you to spend more :/
This will inspire more concern on their part.
You need to change the law first.
Well, maybe law has to change.
For example, in my country if you offer a service to the public you cannot refuse a customer for no reason. It's intended as an anti-discrimination law, but also as a way to protect customers from abuse.
1) can't write on Hacker News (more likely)
2) would say it
3) would not use the country as an example of a functioning country
And we don't like Chinese law for a good reason.
[citation needed]
> If any other publisher were to give money owed to a creator
YT doesn't actually owe money to anyone. Legally, they could host the videos, put ads and keep all the money. They distribute money because they want to incentivize content creators to upload stuff, but they do it at their discretion.
Damages for willful infringement are 150k per work. Pretending that they have zero obligations to creators is an .. interesting perspective that I don't think a lawyer would accept.
Talk to a lawyer
It seems people on the internet try to solve everything with buttons and emails and forget there's a world out there with laws and rights and everything else