Regardless of your personal feelings for this woman, do you agree that this is an exploit that youtube exposes where attackers may be able to get personal information about a youtube account holder?
Regardless of what the (obscure) legal reality is in this matter, do you agree that this woman presents her case in a juvenile way, and shows a general lack of understanding of the real-world procedures (as opposed to how keyboard warriors imagine things are or should be) in matters like this, and an apparent unwillingness to learn about them, to a point where it makes her seem unsuitable to voice an informed opinion about it, and certainly ill-suited to be the flag bearer for a contentious topic like this one?
do you agree that this woman presents her case in a juvenile way
No, I don't agree. Anger at harassment and injustice isn't juvenile. Use of jargon familiar to her audience isn't juvenile either. Although I can see why others would see it that way.
apparent unwillingness to learn about them
I do agree this seems apparent.
To a point where it makes her seem unsuitable to voice an informed opinion about it
The people who filed the request are obviously trolling in order to:
1) Get the videos removed.
2) Potentially get real-life identifying information in order to enact a campaign of harassment. I would hate for GWW to be harassed. She is a breath of fresh air.
The DMCA is fine when the complaints are legit. This penalizes both YouTube and the content creator.
Wouldn't that still greatly narrow down the possibilities of where the person is in real life? At least it would narrow it down to the area they live/work in.
There are lawyers who take on cases like these just on principle (assuming the facts are as described). They would usually want to get co-council who is licensed in your jurisdiction, but if it really comes down to it they might accept being primary on the claim.
It's funny that you phrase it that way. I didn't know the author was a woman (does it matter?).
As others have noted, this form doesn't need your personal information, so no I don't agree that this is an "exploit". You never have to give your personal information.
The situation reminds me of people who make anti-Scientology videos and then cry about freedom of speech when the cult's legal juggernaut descends. Is it fair to get a DMCA or lawsuit threat just because someone disagrees with your content? No (assuming you did not violate copyright protection laws). But getting bit by a shark because you're wading in its pool isn't fair either - just inevitable.
