"...A California court agreed with the Group and granted a request for summary judgment, after which Diebold settled with the Group to pay $125,000 for their monetary losses and legal fees."
Support the EFF. They got the proceeds from our settlement.
Nonetheless, it illustrates that there exists the potential to make filing fraudulent take-downs a costly proposition.
His argument is basically like this: since Google will censor web content with bullshit copyright claims in the US, why can't Google censor taboo topics in China?
Their post was obliterated. Could not be found. Ceased to exist. The DMCA take-down notice removed TechDirt from Google. TechDirt was erased.
All completely true if you don't require modifiers to be stated. I'd prefer that HN doesn't turn into a tabloid.
Whether it's alarmist / excessive is subjective. And, since either would be technically correct, it probably has more to do with implied meanings or the common use of a word, and not the dictionary definition. Their usage of it is certainly defensible, but that has little to do with whether or not a modifier would make it more accurate.
But that leaves a problem: what do you call behavior like this?