That wasn't their first response - it had to go to court first! I used to run a hosting company in the UK, and we have a precedent from 1996? where once a host

That wasn't their first response - it had to go to court first! I used to run a hosting company in the UK, and we have a precedent from 1996? where once a hosting company is informed of a libellous statement served from its network, it can be held jointly liable for it as publisher. So it became quite common for UK hosting companies to take down sites on the slightest hint of a libel complaint. And I (irresponsbibly) used to enjoy fielding these complaints, filtering out the chancers who were never going to sue, and telling them to get lost, bccin'g the customer. Legal indemnity is a nice service and our customers appreciated it. eastdakota has done the same on a larger stage, and made more of cf's neutral, not-a-hosting-company, can't-catch-us attitude which plays well here. (and I'm not unsympathetic - except for the nazis and booters). But when cf are taking double-digit percentages of all internet traffic, they're can't & won't continue fielding every complaint in court.