>shift that determination from agency specialists to judges
All correct until this bit. They in fact want to shift it back to congress, who should do a better job in specifying what power they delegate to unelected heads of executive branch agencies.
There is literally no way a Democrat controlled Senate even reads this bill.
To your point though, a good example of that kind of thing is the idiocy of Republican states who passed years of anti-abortion "trigger laws" in case Roe/Casey were ever overturned. They all assumed those precedence would never be overturned, and so they could be as extreme as they wanted.
This is just the first in a long list of "messaging" bills that will come from a very slim Republican House, because there is Democratic control of the Senate.
They know it won't become law. The point is to rile up the media, get hits on cable news, fund raise, and generally be useless as a governing body. This is what both parties do when they are out of power, and I would say is what they _prefer_ to do. It's easier than governing, makes them money, gets them media attention, etc.
Both parties here in the US _want_ to be minority parties so that they can behave this way and assume no actual responsibility for anything.
Lots of mail gateways / mail security appliances do DNS lookups of URLs in the message body in order to check domain reputation and filter phishing links. It looks like he's using a DNS canary token which would be triggered by those as well.
>YouTube will never change and it will only get worse.
Private entities can be swayed by their customer's demands. Not saying that YT _will_ be swayed, just that this sort of creator outrage has a place in the market system, and "throwing a tantrum" over their bad behavior doesn't always have to be met with "private entities can do whatever they want!"
All correct until this bit. They in fact want to shift it back to congress, who should do a better job in specifying what power they delegate to unelected heads of executive branch agencies.