Kind of an easy question. What do you do if you find out a tenant is cooking drugs on your property? Same kind of thing is going to apply here. I imagine liability in either case is going to be a concern. I'm not worried for the huge hosts.
For a tenant: You call the police and they maybe get arrested. They're still legally allowed to enter the property until you evict them, which takes 30 days or more in most jurisdictions. You might be able to start eviction proceedings. You eventually sue them for damage to the property.
For a webhost, you call the police and....well what they're doing isn't illegal so the police have no reason to care. If they were doing something illegal, ultimately the police might ask (or depending on the law, might need to get a court order) to ask you to shutdown the account. At this point, they'd no longer have access to the account.
In fact, if you imagine a person who does both on the same day, if they got out on bail, they would still be allowed into the house during the course of the eviction process. So they could continue using the house for a minimum of 30 days.
I don't find this comparison to a landlord at all compelling.
Does action in such a case rely on accusation or conviction? This is a question, not bait, because I don't know but I assume it would require conviction which takes time.
DDoSing is already an illegal cybercrime in the US. A DDoS attack could be classified as a federal criminal offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)[1].
Under Damaging a Computer, 1030(a)(5)
> The provision may also be used to prosecute
the perpetrators of Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, which occur, for example, when an attacker overwhelms a server’s ability to process legitimate requests by overloading the server with a flood of illegitimate traffic.
No, you're conflicting two different things. DDoS is obviously illegal as you're attacking someone else. The "forced to host a tenant that they object to" the other commentator is mentioning is regarding not liking their speech and ideas, not actions. Of course we should try to stop illegal activities that actively harm others. When it comes to Parler, it's unclear if Parler themselves were active in inciting the violence, just members who happened to be using Parler, or if they are related at all.
Should the hosting provider wait for a court decision to stop it?