[tenebrisalietum]

> If you penalize and normalize website censorship because of bad actors then what's to stop a big company from barraging a smaller site with malicious users to get it taken down thus removing competition?

The smaller site will have to do what Voat is currently doing and restrict registrations and access for a while. Ultimately the fact that big players can shove smaller players off line is weakness of IPv4 address exhaustion and designing platforms on a strict centralized client-server model, not a model of suppressing violence-inducing speech.

> I don't have the resources or people to deal with that. Should I be taken down for something I can't control?

Yes, because you can put a banner on your page "Hey users, we can only support X users for required moderation of violent content with our current resources. Will you give us more money to support X+Y users?"

[sieabahlpark]

Well with that it means the internet belongs to Google, Facebook, and Amazon.

No point in even trying to build anything because they'll just DoS you with malicious users and you get rejected from all platforms.

Great solution chief.