As such I’m fine with it. For any other purpose - not so much.
The difference is astronomical. The purpose is also to send a signal...
Exactly. There is a huge difference between wanting to censor your enemies and not wanting to censor anybody but being forced to, and then responding by doing so in a balanced rather than asymmetric way.
It would be best for the ISP not to be blocking anything, but given that is not a permitted option...
In addition, the version of censorship people find evil is state censorship. I’ve found this to be a relatively easy thing to agree on in western society. In terms of non-state platforms, what would be censorship is both widely used (curation, bowdlerization, protection of identities of anonymous sources, etc) and in certain circumstances desired. My point being: “censorship” is not a useful thing to discuss in the abstract, and crying censorship whenever service is terminated is less useful that discussing the event in concrete terms. I think the uncanny part here is that the perception of DNS is that it is a public space, but it is implemented in the private space. I’m emphatically not sure what the right thing is to do here but I can’t help but feel glee that the weapons capitalists use to enforce control can also be used against them.