Yeah, it's a little problematic. I've just seen a lot of people misunderstanding and thinking that the NZ Government did this. Personally I haven't read what t

Yeah, it's a little problematic. I've just seen a lot of people misunderstanding and thinking that the NZ Government did this. Personally I haven't read what the motivations were behind the initial block that these ISPs put in very quickly after the attack. (Don't know if there's any threads on NZNOG about it, haven't gone looking.) One possibility, I had was the operations folk were trying to block suspicious sites in case they were being used for communication or would prompt further incidents in what was then an unfolding terrorist attack. That the blocks continue now is something that should be discussed in the NZ ISP community. Do we want ISPs to be able to make unilateral blocking decisions or should they be legally required to be neutral? Maybe this will shape a future net neutrality law.