What's interesting about the two positions you conflate is that they're actually complete opposites. The prevailing narrative on Amazon is that it's overrun by

What's interesting about the two positions you conflate is that they're actually complete opposites. The prevailing narrative on Amazon is that it's overrun by infringement and it's too difficult to file complaints and too easy to avoid them. The prevailing narrative on YouTube is that it's overrun with false infringement complaints and that it's too easy to file complaints and too difficult to dispute. My position on Amazon is that it's more complicated than the prevailing narrative says, that there's a large amount of abuse of the complaint system. And in fact I've filed a lawsuit against someone who abused the system. My position on YouTube is that, due to the DMCA shifting the burden of proof, the whole problem is much smaller. There's no provision on Amazon to shift the burden of proof of infringement back to the person alleging infringement, instead, it's guilty until proven innocent. While on YouTube as a direct result of the DMCA, one can force the other side to prove their case. I would absolutely love if DMCA was extended to trademark infringement allegations. It would make the problems on Amazon shrink by orders of magnitude. You'd no longer have 7 and 8 figure businesses destroyed by some brand that would like their product to sell for more money and is willing to lie to achieve that goal. Now I don't know how you can take these two positions and lump them together as "pro-corporate". Surely if one is pro corporate then the position I'm arguing against on the other company is pro corporate?