We have Shannon's "Communication Theory of Secrecy Systems" as arguably the beginning of modern cryptography and then Diffie & Hellman's "New Directions in Cryptography" which first introduced public-key cryptography.
For larger and more litigious companies like Nintendo one would think YouTube wouldn't continue to accept takedown requests from random unverified users
The problem with that is, the law absolutely demands that the platform comply with any valid takedown notice, so YouTube isn't going to risk having any false negatives (due to internal miscommunications on Nintendo's side, etc.). It's made the responsibility of the uploader to challenge it with a counter-notice, but YouTube makes the process for those far more difficult than what the law says. (YouTube opens itself up to liability if it doesn't put the video back up upon receiving a counter-notice, but it's not like the uploader would be able to sue YouTube for much of anything.)
I feel like tariffs may make the problem worse as the cheaper the battery, the smaller the tariff hit, and so people may be incentivised to go even further down the quality ladder
Australia recently took a massive step backwards in this field, passing laws to allow courts to compel platforms to identify users who made allegedly defamatory posts. This was done under the dubious auspices of "preventing cyber bullying".
Australian defamation law is already extremely plaintiff friendly and has a significant chilling effect on free speech here, especially as against the rich and powerful who can afford to threaten lawsuits against anybody who wrongs them
I remember around the time of the first new "cyberbullying" legislation (around 2016 if I remember right), it was almost immediately used to hinder the Carlton Breweries strike by accusing organizers of bullying and cyberbullying for reporting on scab tactics. It's all very two faced.
I don't get the impression from this case that US law would behave much differently. This case involved reddit users who had nothing to do with the litigation and were not, themselves being sued. The court saw fit to protect their right to speak anonymously.
In the case of a person making a defamatory post, that person can be sued and reddit would likely be compelled to identify them to the best of its ability.
To continue to overextend the analogy though, that's asking people to use Edge over Chrome or Firefox is like trying to market the Smart Car. Few people want to be seen driving it, fuel efficiency be damned.
Money being collected and then paid back is not required for the government to be subsidising something. It is sufficient that's the revenue collection be foregone.
