By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A judge has ordered the immediate removal of deposition clips from members of DOGE that had previously been uploaded by the Modern Language Association. These depositions, including one where a member struggled to define DEI, gained significant viral attention. The Modern Language Association, along with the American Council of Learned Societies and the American Historical Association, are currently suing the National Endowment for the Humanities and others regarding substantial grant cuts made by DOGE.
Read the original article here
The recent court order to remove deposition videos featuring former employees of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, often referred to as DOGE, from the internet has predictably backfired, sparking widespread mockery and solidifying the internet’s uncanny ability to preserve and amplify information. A New York judge mandated the takedown of these videos, which had rapidly become viral social media sensations, but this move has been widely interpreted as a textbook example of the Streisand Effect, a phenomenon where attempts to suppress information only lead to its wider dissemination. The very act of trying to erase these clips from the digital landscape has only served to highlight their existence and the content within them, making them even more sought after.
The core of the issue appears to stem from the perceived incompetence and lack of qualification of the individuals captured in the depositions. Many observers have pointed out the irony that the very qualities DOGE was reportedly seeking were, in fact, glaringly present in these former employees. The videos, once released, were downloaded millions of times within mere hours, a testament to the internet’s efficient replication and distribution capabilities. Attempts to scrub the web of these recordings are seen as futile, with the underlying sentiment being that the internet “never forgets and never forgives.”
The judge’s order, intended to halt the mockery, has instead fueled it. Comments flooded in, questioning the judge’s understanding of the internet and the practical impossibility of removing content once it has been so widely copied and shared. The idea of the internet being a series of tubes, as famously misstated by Senator Ted Stevens, has resurfaced as a humorous analogy for the futility of such takedown requests. The sentiment is that if the videos were made public in the first place, and now they’re trying to scrub them, it’s simply too late.
Furthermore, there’s a strong sense that the former employees, by virtue of their public service roles, should have anticipated their actions and words being subject to public scrutiny. The argument is that working for the citizens of the United States inherently means accepting that every aspect of their work is public record. A lack of understanding or awareness of this transparency requirement is seen as a personal failing, not a valid reason to withhold public information. The public’s right to access information about their government, especially in deposition settings, is emphasized, and individuals cannot expect to avoid scrutiny simply because the exposure makes them look bad.
The nature of the content in the depositions seems to have been particularly damning, confirming pre-existing suspicions about entitlement and ignorance. The hope expressed by many is that these individuals’ professional and personal lives will be significantly impacted as a result, and that businesses will be hesitant to engage with them in the future. This is viewed as a just consequence for their perceived behavior and displayed lack of understanding.
The claim of “death threats” being made against these individuals has also been met with skepticism, with some suggesting it’s a tactic to garner sympathy or deflect from the embarrassing content of the depositions. This administration, as it’s been characterized by some, is perceived as quick to claim “death threats” without sufficient evidence. However, acknowledging the unfortunate reality that such threats, however misguided, are unfortunately common in online discourse, particularly for women expressing opinions, is also a point raised.
Ultimately, the situation highlights a significant disconnect between the desire to control information and the reality of the digital age. The DOGE deposition videos, despite judicial intervention, have become a prime example of how attempts to suppress information can inadvertently amplify it, leading to unintended consequences and widespread public ridicule. The internet, in this instance, has served as both the archive and the amplifier, ensuring that the perceived missteps of those in public roles are not easily forgotten, regardless of any subsequent judicial orders.