@DavidJBianco@infosec.exchange
Post #3895053
2026-07-17 20:44 UTC
@flyingpenguin@infosec.exchange It's not, but if one side is playing by rules that the other side gets to ignore, that's a problem too.
Replies (1)
-
@flyingpenguin@infosec.exchange 2026-07-17 20:54
@DavidJBianco@infosec.exchange Rules? That's like calling instance tier limits the "rules". The attacker license is higher, they aren't playing by the "rules"? No, sorry, those aren't actually rules. They are just vendor configurations like how many tokens you get. Self-defense allows proportionality, never parity. Parity with the attacker is called vigilantism. The guardrail as a vendor setting was exited by changing products, as HF did mid-incident. That makes it nothing more than a service tier. Law binds both sides. Nobody here ignored a rule, because there was never a rule in play. There was a configuration, and HF changed it.