The only reason someone would advocate to turn off ddos protection for a site, is so someone can perform terroristic acts against the site and ddos it until it goes down.
How about it - you tell me. What reason would so many people, maybe in this thread chain, argue so strongly for a company to revoke its ddos protection of a website they dont like. Its weird right?
I would suggest you take up that question with Cloudflare. Based off your previous statements, they’re now supporting “terroristic” acts. I’m not sure why you would want the opinion of some internet stranger over a corporation that is now directly supporting terrorism by your estimation.
This, my fellow citizens, is what we call a "bad faith actor". They volunteer a position on questionable premises, get asked about their internal philosophical consistency, then dodge the question.
I agree, the poster that was very obviously and hamhandedly trying to get me to say something that they could then twist into “I support terrorism” or whatever was indeed acting in bad faith. Thank you for highlighting this.
CF: >Over the last two weeks, we have proactively reached out to law enforcement in multiple jurisdictions highlighting what we believe are potential criminal acts and imminent threats to human life that were posted to the site.
It sounds like CF didn't ban them because of revolting or otherwise commonly illegal content, but actual death threats against individuals that have been reported to law enforcement.
How about it - you tell me. What reason would so many people, maybe in this thread chain, argue so strongly for a company to revoke its ddos protection of a website they dont like. Its weird right?