If your goal is to force companies the world over to host domestically, where they follow local licensing regimes (yes, including censorship, as well as data access), it’s highly effective. Even better, it makes users fail to identify the difference between “google is down because it is blocked” and “google is slow, because western websites are always slow and too annoying to bother loading”. You also missed my other note that slower links means you don’t have to spend as much on GF appliances, cause there’s less traffic to filter!
> On Apr 1, 2020, at 20:46, Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, 01 Apr 2020 12:47:22 -0700, Matt Corallo said: > >> No one suggested it isn’t censorship, you’re bating here. Not deploying >> enough international capacity is absolutely a form or censorship deployed to >> great avail - if international sites load too slow, you can skimp on GF >> appliances! > > So.. who was being "censored" when a recent game release caused capacity > problems and slow throughput for others? > > Censorship, *by definition*, is content-dependent. Capacity issues are either > byte-count or packet-count dependent, and don't distinguish between pictures > of > huge rubber duckies in Tiananmen square, and pictures of Mount Kilimanjaro. >
