I don’t think CF ever said they had a legal obligation and I don’t think they ever wanted to be perceived as if they do so I don’t think the reminder in your co

I don’t think CF ever said they had a legal obligation and I don’t think they ever wanted to be perceived as if they do so I don’t think the reminder in your comment changes any stances. The fact of the matter is that people are mad because CF is protecting a site against digital vigilante justice instead of finding a better means to approach taking down KF. As a company CF could deny service to KF but then it would be giving power to the vocal dissidents who could seemingly quiet any site they find disagreeable.