Who is being defended as a consequence of being against DDOS is completely irrelevant, as it should be. Attempting to boil it down to Oxford's definition is qui

Who is being defended as a consequence of being against DDOS is completely irrelevant, as it should be. Attempting to boil it down to Oxford's definition is quite reductionist, especially when literally anything can be a political aim(even a rejection of politics can be seen as a political opinion) as well as violence not being that set in stone either. Encyclopedia Britannica said it best: "Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial, and, because of the inherent ferocity and violence of terrorism, the term in its popular usage has developed an intense stigma."[0] But even under your definition I fundamentally disagree that this instance of it doesn't fit. It is an unlawful attack on infrastructure with clearly political aims against a service used by civilians, it is clearly being used to intimidate hosts to drop them so that the DDOS doesn't create more collateral damage for their other customers as well. It's fine to agree with terrorism, one man's terrorist is another freedom fighter and all that, but I doubt most people would agree that it isn't terrorism. [0]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism