Corporate Denial-of-Service (CDoS): Power of corporate cancellation

• Author:
• Author name

  Quantumrun Foresight
• February 22, 2023

Social media companies are known to permanently ban certain individuals or groups that violate their terms of service by inciting violence or spreading hate speech. Some computing services like Azure and Amazon Web Services (AWS) can even shut down entire websites. While companies have their own reasons for denying some customers access to their services, some experts warn that these companies’ freedom to exercise Corporate Denial-of-Service (CDoS) should be regulated.

Corporate Denial-of-Service context

Corporate denial-of-service, more commonly known as corporate de-platforming, is when a company blocks, bans, or simply refuses to give access to its products and services to certain individuals or groups. Corporate denial-of-service typically occurs on social media and website hosting services. Since 2018, there have been several high-profile cases of de-platforming, with the shutdowns escalating after the January 2021 US Capitol attack, which ultimately saw US President Donald Trump permanently banned from all social media, including TikTok, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

An earlier example of CDoS is Gab, a social media platform popular with the alt-right and white supremacists. The site was shut down in 2018 by its hosting company, GoDaddy, after it was revealed that the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter had an account on the platform. Similarly, Parler, another social media platform popular with the alt-right, was shut down in 2021. Parler’s previous hosting company, Amazon Web Services (AWS), removed the website after what AWS claimed to be a steady increase in violent content published on Parler’s website, which violated AWS’ terms of use. (Both platforms eventually came back online after finding alternative hosting providers.)

A popular forum website, Reddit, shut down r/The_Donald, a subreddit popular with former US President Donald Trump supporters, for similar reasons. Finally, AR15.com, a website popular with gun enthusiasts and conservatives, was shut down in 2021 by GoDaddy, saying the company violated its terms of service. 

Disruptive impact

The implications of these CDoS instances are significant. First, they show a growing trend of online platforms and websites being shut down or denied access. This trend is likely to continue as more companies come under societal and government pressure to take action against content that is seen as hateful or inciting violence. Second, these events have major implications for freedom of speech. The discontinued platforms allowed users to share their views without fear of censorship. However, now that online hosts have denied them access, their users will have to find alternative platforms and mediums to share their opinions.

Third, these events show tech companies’ power to censor speech. While some may see this as a positive development, it is important to remember that censorship can be a slippery slope. Once companies start blocking one type of speech, they may soon begin censoring other types of expression that they deem offensive or harmful. And what is deemed offensive or harmful can change rapidly depending on evolving social mores and future governments in power.

Companies use several strategies to execute CDoS. The first is blocking access to app stores, which makes it impossible for potential users to download certain apps. Next is demonetization, which can include preventing ads from being shown on the site or taking away fundraising options. Finally, companies can cut off a platform’s access to an entire digital infrastructure or ecosystem, including cloud analytics and storage devices. In addition, what de-platforming underscores is the importance of decentralized infrastructure. Gab, Parler, r/The_Donald, and AR15.com all relied on centralized infrastructure provided by hosting companies. 

Wider implications of Corporate Denial-of-Service 

Possible implications of CDoS may include: 

• Social media companies investing more heavily in content moderation departments to go through questionable profiles and posts. The biggest of these companies may eventually implement advanced artificial intelligence-powered moderation that finally understands nuance, regional cultural norms, and how to filter out various forms of propaganda; such an innovation may result in a significant competitive advantage against competitors.


• Banned groups and individuals continuing to file lawsuits against companies that refuse them services, citing censorship.


• The continued rise of alternative and decentralized online platforms that might encourage the spread of misinformation and extremism.


• Increasing complaints against tech firms withholding their services from other companies without any explanation. This development can lead to these tech companies’ CDoS policies being regulated.


• Some governments creating policies that balance freedom of speech with CDoS, while others may use CdoS as a new method of censorship.

Questions to consider

• Do you think CDoS is lawful or ethical?


• How can governments ensure that companies are not abusing their power in their application of CDoS?