vs the US? The US is the reason why companies and sites the world over have to deal with DMCA triggered censorship, where an objectively and clearly erroneous (even fraudulent) notice must be responded to with a functionally non-rescindable take down that guarantees two weeks of content suppression with no compensation for the victims, and no penalties for the perpetrators.
You could say "google, etc have could check first" but the volume of notices they receive mean it is not fair to them either - checking every single claim manually, in the knowledge that if they ever get it wrong (even in good faith) they become a corporation engaging in piracy (so the 100k/violation limit applies afaict).
The fact that Google, et al seem unable to require a confirmed US contact, and correctly filed forms is similarly absurd -- I think this came up in the past, and G had said a bunch of "legitimate" (as in major corporations that had no excuse) DMCA filers keep filing incorrectly but were threatening lawsuits if G pushed back on them.
The reality is the DMCA needs to be amended (I am under no illusions of it ever being repealed, and to an extent it does enable platforms like YouTube, etc to exist) to:
* Require DMCA requests to be filed by entities with a confirmed legal US presence (allowing a delay in take down for confirmation of identity with a new reporter) - i.e. an entity that can be sued in the US, even if just a law firm,
* Allow responders to enforce stricter policies on requests for organizations that have made "mistakes" in the past (maybe starting with allowing a delay to permit a response from the target prior to takedown, requiring a bond, all the way through to disallowing requests from organizations and individuals that have made sufficient false claims - currently it does not matter how many erroneous claims are made, claims must basically be taken as accurate because they've been declared true)
* Allow delayed takedowns for fair use cases (ie. if the target content is a small part of the target content, allow someone to look at it manually to see if it's plausibly fair use, or require a deposit from the reporter to cover the penalty if the target is found to be fair use) - basically it's more reasonable to say "take down this post that is just my music/video/movie immediately" than "take down this 15 minute post because it has a 30s sample from my music/video/movie immediately". Especially when the latter is often used to censor criticism.
* Allow the responding organization and the subject of the takedown to separately receive compensation for erroneous and fraudulent claims, including associated legal costs. I think you need both to be able to demand compensation separately so that people targeting non-US victims can still be subjected to penalties and costs via google when the victim cannot sue, and so that they victims can also get compensated.
* Require prosecution of perjured DMCA claims (again, this is why confirmed US legal presence should be required for these claims)
But none of that will happen :-/