There's some precedent in that: for example, certain actions against the Chinese "Golden Shield" involving blocked content and well-known CDNs. They were willin

There's some precedent in that: for example, certain actions against the Chinese "Golden Shield" involving blocked content and well-known CDNs. They were willing to, um, "harmonise" it, almost no matter what the cost. I'm calling the bluff of Western governments taking the same line. They ask about it, sure, and they'd do it to little sites that wouldn't fight back or that they rule illegal, but to do it to powerful, well-known, extremely popular sites is a huge, overt, draconian step: one they and the populace supporting them will hopefully find too distasteful to bear. One that reminds them about the cost, drawbacks and hopelessness of what they are doing, and forces them to ask the hard questions about whatever they think the benefit is, and whether it's really worth it. It's an interesting anti-censorship tactic I've studied for a while. It is however essentially playing chicken with nation-states to see what collateral damage they're willing to accept to take control of what their citizens have access to before they give up, however. It thus may fail, but the stakes can always, potentially, be raised again. The ultimate failure mode for it is a nation-state deciding to disconnect from the internet completely - but that's what so-called "guerrilla networking" is for, because fuck that noise. The tactic is also potentially applicable to even the most advanced DPI-based protocol blocking, if you have a indistinguishable link protocol and a set of techniques to masquerade such a protocol as more recognisable protocols. I don't have anything to release regarding that yet. <g>