Well, this is somewhat similar to how it is rare for a large email provider such as Yahoo, Gmail, etc. to mistakenly label all content from one of the others as spam, but not uncommon for them to make that mistake about small email providers. It doesn't even need to be a conspiracy for that to happen, just a greater concern for larger providers.

I have no direct knowledge of YouTube's configuration, but my more general knowledge of how Alphabet does business suggests that high-business-value customers have company-internal guardians (in sales, advertising, or biz-dev) who are actually tasked with making sure nothing breaks on their services. I assume they do the same for high-biz-value channels, so I'd expect fewer accidents on bigger channels with more opportunity to make a mess for YT than smaller ones.

"Reputation" in one form or another is often considered in abuse-fighting mechanisms, so it would be surprising if this weren't the case.

They own all IP, why would they be subject to automated scans?

There is many good reasons to "scan" _all_ content. How about spam, illegal content, or anything that violates their TOU? These days if you do not have a litany of algorithms performing these tasks, the worst case is that you'll end up like Facebook where genocide occured (in Myanmar) because the content was not in unicode and the detection systems couldn't "read" it.

Like any other site, accounts with less "trust" are probably going to be flagged by automatic mechanisms. I've been on a few teams with various companies that have done things like fraud detection and it almost always works this way. sometimes there is of course, legitimate false positives.

That’s a good point. scanAll() and applyAutomatedTakedownAI() would not be applied equally because of course big corp never pirates