> I get to hold you responsible for the deaths that happen, if cloudflare is no longer able to stand up against these greater threats.

This isn't how normal people think.

You seem very obsessed with authoritarian governments. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to live under authoritarianism either.

Why don't we stretch this in any old way back to DDoS? Why should the government say which packets I can and cannot send? Any encroachment by the government into something as silly as sending DDoS packets slices down my ability to speak freely. If they start at DDoS, then what's stopping them from limiting other forms of speech?

See, I can do the same thing. Just because free speech in the form of sending DDoS packets isn't liked by people doesn't mean we should be willing to give it up. Right? Because once we start limiting what kind of packets we can send, we're only a slipper slope away from being told which other kinds of packets we can't send.

Still, I'm not sure why you're dragging government into a scenario which is otherwise devoid of government interference. In this whole story, all I see is a bunch of civilians. If there is a government actor, department, or anything, please share. Otherwise it just looks like standard whataboutism directed at the govt.

> Any encroachment by the government..... my ability to speak freely.

Look, if you are ok with authoritarian governments DDoSing human rights organizations, then say so.

> I'm not sure why you're dragging government into a scenario

So, one big reason why cloudflare is used, is by human rights organizations to protect themselves from being DDoS'ed by authoritarian governments.

If you don't care about that, then just say so.

> is otherwise devoid of government interference.

It is not devoid from government interference, because cloudflare stops authoritarian governments from interfering with human right's organizations.

And, as I said before, this precedent hurts cloudfares ability to protect human right's organizations from being taken down by these governments, by protecting them from DDoS attacks, from those governments.

> If there is a government actor, department, or anything

Every time cloudflare is pressured to stop protecting websites, this is ammo that authoritarian governments can use against them, to drop protections for other organizations, such as human rights organizations. It might not happen tomorrow, but it is more ammo that these governments can use.

This is a long way of saying that you're ok with the government censoring which packets people send.

Can you answer the question?

Why do you keep avoiding this idea of authoritarian governments DDoSing human rights organizations?

> that you're ok with the government censoring which packets people send.

So, if an authoritarian government, tried to target a gay rights organization, yes I would be ok with a different government protecting this targeted minority from DDoS attacks.

This is because I do not want important human rights organizations, such as ones that protect gay people from being oppressed, from being taken off the internet by bad people.

Do you see how I just directly addressed the question, by saying that yes I am in favor of the government protecting, for example, gay rights organizations, from being DDoSed?

Do you really oppose this protection? Would you support an authoritarian government, taking down a gay rights organization?

Are you still making this nonsense argument? What idea is performing a DoS attack expressing?

I think the answer is because they simply support attacking and targeting human rights organizations, such as gay rights organizations, or ones that protect targeted minorities.

I tried to get them to talk about this issue, and they basically admitted that they support removing, for example, gay right organizations from the internet, via DDoS attacks.

Because apparently protecting gay rights organizations would infringe on their free speech to target and remove those organizations from the internet.

Well, yes, it would indeed infringe upon such a right (if it existed), but this argument can be applied to any action. The fact that murder is illegal infringes upon my natural right to shoot kelseyfrog in the face. If they want to argue for total lawlessness I won't stop them, but it would be less disingenuous if they would stop beating around the bush.

The content of the idea is superfluous. The point is that if you give the government the ability to tell people what packets they can and cannot send, then you're implicitly trusting that they won't abuse this power in the future and decide that there are other things people can and cannot send.

You're avoiding the question. Your claim is that making DDoS attacks illegal infringes upon your right to freedom of speech. My question to you is, since freedom of speech is the freedom to express ideas, what idea does performing a DDoS attack express?