Sure, some particular DDoS campaigns can be seen as a sit-in protest and personally I'm not personal objective or supportive to these campaigns, but under the c

Sure, some particular DDoS campaigns can be seen as a sit-in protest and personally I'm not personal objective or supportive to these campaigns, but under the current architecture of the Internet and World Wide Web, DDoS cannot be prevented, and as a vulnerability, it not only enables "sit-in protest", but essentially enables a mechanism of censorship, especially after the rise of these "DDoS as a service" vendors, they are effectively a "Censorship on Demand" service. Any self-published speech on a personal webserver now can be kicked out of the Internet by anyone. For example, during the Hong Kong Occupy Central protest in 2014, some news websites experienced a government-sponsored 500 Gbps DDoS attack. The recent example was Krebs On Security blog, which has been a target for blackhat groups and hit by a 1 Tbps attack. The World Wide Web was supposed to be a (to some extent) permissionless publishing platform, that means if you are already connected to the Internet via a commercial ISP, as long as the content is legal and the law of your jurisdiction protects the freedom of speech, you don't need anyone's particular approval to run a HTTP server. But now under the threats of DDoS attack, no independent webserver can survive, the only solution is utilizing a centralized CDN / reverse-proxy, and accepts EULA of their choice and theoretically they can modify and censor your traffic arbitrarily. I think decentralized systems such as ZeroNet or IPFS may be a solution, and I hope they can be integrated into a web browser one day.