---
EDIT: Is there a guideline against 'TL;DR' comments? When I've written them in the past, they've been upvoted.
Each blocked site lost:
- $X directly in business missed during those hours
- The trust of users who believed the warning
If they lost these things by arson or slander, the perpetrator might be punished. But since it was the government, they'll probably get nothing but an apology.
Any justice system will have some collateral damage: standing trial costs you time, money and reputation, even in a fair trial where you're declared innocent. But since the damage is so real and sometimes severe, we should REALLY force government to be careful how it applies itself. Warrants, oversight, auditing, judicial review, etc.
No bureaucrat should have a "ruin this business" button.
That's the way they're getting away with the lack of oversight: Make it "voluntary" ("or we'll tell the press you support child porn", nudge, nudge)
Edit: forgot some words
I prefer the commentary form of TL;DR which is a pithy remark that allows people who are already familiar with the subject to learn what biases or novel facts this article displays. For example, consider the fictitious article:
Are Human Ears High Resolution Signal Detectors?
which discusses a study of microphones, digital audio recordings and double-blind human subjects trying to distinguish signal in high-noise environments.
A useful TL;DR might be:
Human ears suck.
which might be a useful indicator of whether you're going to learn anything new from reading it.
Standing up for TL;DR's in general, not the OP's.