I see where that joke was trying to go, but it doesn't work.
127.0.0.1 is a non-routable address that every machine with an IP stack has whether or not they're connected to the internet. Which means that an ISP removing service doesn't do anything relevant to the takedown request.
Also, Google doesn't index anything with that address (for what I hope are obvious reasons), so they're already effectively "delisted".
In this case, though, there was no amount of compromise that would get the Republicans to agree to anything. This was an overt strategy on the part of Republican leadership that they discussed publicly.
The idea was to obstruct every single thing that came from Democrats so that during elections seasons they could claim that Democrats failed to accomplish anything.
I think this is the best example of how utterly broken the takedown mechanism is. You can sortof understand how actual sites could get mistakenly caught up in the net, but the inclusion of 127.0.0.1 is so utterly and completely braindead (and trivially avoided) that their inclusion is a straight-up admission that the filers aren't doing even the most basic checking.
"it has been years now that the car CAN bus system is horribly flawed with security holes."
Exactly this. I've programmed for CAN-based systems before, and security is simply not a part of mix. In the old days, this was (barely) acceptable because you had to physically connect to the system to subvert it.
Getting CAN anywhere near an external network is guaranteed to be a serious problem, though.
I think the copyright holders couldn't care less. Or if they do care, they prefer that unrelated things get included in the takedown lists over the chance that even a single legitimate infringement might go without a takedown.
This is me. My total Comcast bill is lower with internet+basic cable than with internet alone, so I get basic cable. But I haven't even hooked the converter box up. I'm a "cord cutter" in that I don't watch cable TV, but I'm not a "cord cutter" in their statistics.