One quite perplexing common theme is "thing gets flagged -> thing gets resolved by a human as a false positive or whatever -> two weeks later, thing gets flagged again with no change, presumably by an automated system".

If the flagging is done by a human, is there really no "case file" that records the previous flags and why they were false positives? If it is done by an automated system, why is it allowed to flag things that a human has already cleared with no change?

FWIW, the audits were definitely being performed by humans, we saw the screenshots and some notes. The triggers for audits were likely automated.

Not a FB story, but I once had an innocuous profile image on a Google side-account get flagged and automatically restricted from public view. I requested human review and it was manually approved. The next week it got flagged again; same process, reapproved. This kept happening every week until 5 times total; I kept going just to see how long would it take them to stop, as I didn't really care about the image or even the account.

Long time after I'd last used that account, I logged-in again and, you guessed it, the image was flagged. Requested yet another review, approved. Was it really that hard for them to trigger human reviews before restricting content that had already been reviewed?

Hard? No.

Beyond their interest in doing, or their (low, low) budget to do at scale? Yes.

You mean large company screws up, people get in touch and they fix it?

I completely disagree, there aren't many stories like this. In fact I don't remember reading any on HN.