I'm not generally inclined to assume laws are passed on sound philosophical backing (I've seen too many laws passed that aren't only poorly-grounded, but actually grounded in counterfactual to believe one follows from the other).
But from a mechanical standpoint that is an interesting fact and I'll be intrigued to see how HE defends itself here, should the regulators choose to step in.
(They may not. The text of the law says HE may not drop lawful traffic. To a cursory read, it's unclear if that means they can't drop lawful traffic bundled with unlawful traffic, i.e. if criminals start slipping criminal activity into lawful activity, is the whole channel drop-worthy?)
I think it's good to get a case like this on the books and a precedent established because I think the enthusiasm with which some entities are embracing 'deplatforming' is a bit disturbing and some pushback is well overdue.
But from a mechanical standpoint that is an interesting fact and I'll be intrigued to see how HE defends itself here, should the regulators choose to step in.
(They may not. The text of the law says HE may not drop lawful traffic. To a cursory read, it's unclear if that means they can't drop lawful traffic bundled with unlawful traffic, i.e. if criminals start slipping criminal activity into lawful activity, is the whole channel drop-worthy?)