Why don't people comment on linked articles? I find this story funny. Google: it's okay to host millions of illegal (copyright protected videos) but it's not okay to do something that might affect PR or ad revenue generation. It's okay to host movies and tv shows, but geez, that inappropriate content? Now that's bad. If they can hire people for this purpose then they could have or can deal with the absurd amount of copyrighted illegal uploads. Actually, no they won't. They don't have to. Do advertisers have issue with their ads showing up on copyrighted content? One is bad and one is not so bad apparently. Kind of sickening to me.

Better late than never.
I believe that the content in question here is more the extremist terrorist propaganda than anything else.
[theguardian.com ]

The point here is that Google decided to care about what is being uploaded only after advertiser blow back and negative PR. It wasn't because it was the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to also not host copyrighted content without permission or outside of fair use. These hirings have nothing to do with "doing the right thing". Content is king and sooner or later people will realize who is monetizing it yet not creating it.

Quite right, Mr.S. Along with government pressure from Europe...... ;)

Another 10,000 ways to make mistakes?