Re: The auto takedowns...
"What I take serious issue with is the complete lack of redress, nuance or balance. Where is the ability to argue a point back that doesn't require you to be a social media celebrity bringing negative press against a company posting a strike? Why isn't there a method where if sufficient challenges against a company issuing strikes gets them put on the naughty bench unable to issue more until the can prove legitimately that the strikes are valid?"
There *IS* a penalty clause in the DMCA for false takedown notices, it includes being able to collect damages and penalties against them. As much as they might want to squirm out of it, I'm QUITE sure that there'd be no arguing against dead silence being a false takedown notice. And indeed, there have been cases in the past where the DMCA-trolls tried to argue "Well, it's automated, it makes mistakes", the judge correctly pointed out "Your bot is auto-signing attesting UNDER PERJURY that the info is true, that's your problem for not having a human double-check the bot results." The groups that use the DMCA as a kudgel have just made very sure they push ISPs, google, twitter, etc., into accepting automated DMCA claims, while making sure very few if any of them make people aware of their full rights.