2 ms·
> Ideally you'd hope that they would allow third party takedowns. But the ability to do third party takedowns provides a target for the exact attackers that the
by duskwuff 5mo ago
> Ideally you'd hope that they would allow third party takedowns. But the ability to do third party takedowns provides a target for the exact attackers that their business is trying to protect against.
I don't think that argument holds water. There's a world of difference between knocking a site offline with a DDoS and making a legal request which results in a hosting provider shutting it down.
- semiquaver 5mo agoSure. Any evidence such a legal request has been made in this case? If not, why the whining?
- fluffybucktsnek 5mo agoThey are both denial of services. While there indeed differences between them, they don't seem relevant here. If a third party takedown system is poorly implemented (and it's pretty hard to create a balanced takedown system at scale), it may become more effective to abuse it instead of using DDoS.