[caskstrength]

Nitter is hobbyist-ran, it is not some big tech company with army of lawyers who can sue you anywhere in the world. Allowing randos to arbitrary and capriciously shutdown any resource on the small web with such "guilty until proven innocent" mechanism is not sustainable in my opinion. This is already happened with videos when anything with sound in it can (and is) harassed by DMCA-wielding bad actors, now we are allowing to do the same with any web page with an image in it.

[anileated]

First, a platform with millions of posts from millions of users could not be further from small Web with its self-published, crafted websites.

Second, this law is precisely what makes it possible to run a social platform and not have an army of lawyers.

Without DMCA safe harbor protection, Nitter could be sued to oblivion the first time they are caught distributing infringing material. Big corporations with armies of lawyers and moderates could maybe afford the legal costs, but if you are just a few guys… you’d never run a website where people can post freely.

Under safe harbor, however, copyright owners can’t sue you, and in return you promise to timely hide content when you are notified. If you can’t be bothered to even do that, perhaps you should not run a platform focused on UGC in the first place. Everyone does it, even 4chan.