Not seeing forest for trees. Yes, Google does that for pirates where legitimate takedown notices are posted, but they also do that for cases not involving piracy where the DCMA notice is an attempt to stifle public discussion or to hide bad acts that someone doesn't want public, or to censor. It's generally not wise to consider what's in one's personal interest to be the sole factor in determining whether something serves a larger good.

You aren't seeing the planet that hosts the forest - it is the DMCA, not the DCMA. The "larger good" in this context is determined by the laws of the United States is that safe harbor protections are extended only in the case that a network provider follows this process,  and that is not in the interest of Google. Google is a publicly traded corporation that generates significant revenue from an extremely pervasive advertisement system - its no more or less self interested than other corporations that are involved. They've simply found a clever way to use the DMCA to harm any entity that sends them a take down notice. Google could examine a link and send a counter notice if they were really interested in protecting free speech. They could do that and protect the individual rights of creators and also protect public discourse, too.

Personal interest (also know as "greed') vs the larger good is a philosophical argument highly prone to logical fallacy and looks like a backhanded ad hominem attack. It can be argued to the end of time and still produce nothing.

Best regards,

chikako
Meshbox Design | 3D Models You Want