On mass political fuckery as DDoS, not “distraction”.

Incidentally, the way you deal with actual DDoSes is a combination of horizontal scaling, source-blocking, and point-of-origin identification. Translated to political activism this means:

  1. identifying and gathering allies, with the idea that different groups can address different components of the attack
  2. blocking, ignoring, drowning out, or otherwise shutting down “amplifiers” (e.g. Twitter trolls, FOX News, etc.), and
  3. identifying the “command-and-control” (C&C)1 infrastructure that’s driving everything else.

In DDoSes, it’s common that the C&C infrastructure (#3) is not immediately targetable–or sometimes even identifiable–for whatever reason. That’s why the short- and medium-term responses are #1 and #2. In fact, in general, it’s different resources entirely that’ll address #3, in ways that are supported by the work of #1.

Also note that the key issue with scaling (#1) is that it should be horizontal, not vertical. “Vertical scaling” basically means keeping one server and making it bigger, so that it can deal with all of the flood, while “horizontal scaling” means deploying multiple servers, of varying capacities, each of which only deals with part of the flood. The point is that multiple resources working together mean the overall system is less likely to “burn out”; when individual parts become overwhelmed, they can be relieved by other components that retain capacity. And that’s not a failure of the individual components. It’s the design of the system. It supports itself.

… I feel this metaphor has gotten away from me a little, but, like. Tl;dr, activism, like DDoS mitigation, is a group effort.

  1. Or C2. Basically, “C2” is the military version of the acronym, “C&C” is the cybersecurity one. []