3 ms·

At this point I'm not convinced that you know either what point you're actually arguing or how a DDoS works.

• Dylan16807 3y ago
  You're too focused on specific technicalities that you picked. If you had a server on a shared medium or a half-duplex connection then DDoS would be exactly the same as shouting over someone. The shouting is aimed at the audience and gets in the way of the server's signal. Putting the server on a full-duplex connection changes the technical details but it doesn't have any meaningful effect on what happens. The purpose is not to break anything, the purpose is to cause so much extra signal that the server can't get its own signal out. Just like a counter-protest. The thing being intentionally degraded is the connection. Not the "speaker". Or if it's a higher level DDoS then it's usually the DDoS clients filling the queue. Which is also a pretty normal counter-protest thing, getting in the way and taking up all the close audience space.
  • andrewflnr 3y ago
    You're the one bogged down in mechanical details, trying to nitpick the definition of "malfunction". I'm only trying to argue that a DDoS isn't meaningfully speech. None of your what-ifs actually change that. Speech has the intent of communicating with humans. DDoSs do not (if they have content, it's incidental to their primary goal).
    • Dylan16807 3y ago
      I'm arguing that it's largely the same as a counter-protest. A counter-protest is primarily trying to overwhelm someone else's speech, not to tell people anything. But it still gets classified as speech. Is there a crucial difference I'm missing here?
      • andrewflnr 3y ago
        Oh, so it's counter-protests you don't understand.