Let's take a relatively trivial example: TV "appropriateness." Mainland western Europe have different standards to the US. They are more tolerant of bad language and nudity in daytime programming, less tolerant of violence. Other places have different tolerances (political & religious taboos, often).
YouTube's policies are clearly of the US flavour.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJX8EALqb4PzmhYdnK6Ax...
It's the same backwards situation on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/BhrSKOiFawg/
I don't think that's the reason. Episode 1 has full female nudity and a scene with menstrual blood running down a leg. Episode 6 has a close up of a very cleanly waxed vagina from a skinny woman. That probably tripped child porn filters (automated or manual).
Did not expect my day to include watching Norweigan puberty videos.
I didn't see the bloody one. Just as well, because the last time I saw that was in a horror movie.
PS: Your last sentence made me laugh.
Even if it is, an automated filter being more sensitive to detecting female child porn than male is a lot more innocuous then banning a video because it talks about female puberty.
They should dub that to English. If parents want that sort of "there's no shame here" approach.. there's probably no English equivalents.
It's not quite the same thing but a company like netflix offers different shows in different countries, spotify's the same for songs. This is more down to licensing than censorship and the scale is quite different from social media but it's a demonstration on how a company can provide different content per region.
Of course, if you flip the argument on it's head, we're annoyed that a company like Google is censoring things which are allowed or common place in society outside of the US. we wouldn't want google censoring content that we consider "enlightened" into countries which we consider backwards (which they no doubt do) and that's always the hypocrisy of these positions.