There's not even any proof Beamed was responsible for the attack in the article--it's all speculation. "Anonymous person on the internet claiming <thing>" is p

There's not even any proof Beamed was responsible for the attack in the article--it's all speculation. "Anonymous person on the internet claiming <thing>" is proof of nothing. It's just as likely someone claimed they used Beamed to try to get a competing service taken down or direct attention elsewhere. Don't get my wrong, Beamed looks like a scummy booter service with no legal purpose. However, claiming companies should deplatform sites based on speculation is, imo, a very dangerous precedent.