KF has their own server, own ISP/router boxes, own IPs, and their own colo hardware. The issue is that it's not that expensive on an absolute level (hundreds of dollars to take them out for a day) to just saturate their gigabit downlink. You get another gigabit downlink, they saturate that too. Ten gigabits, a bit harder, but still pretty easy. You need to have hundreds of gitabits of downlink on standby (at least, I assume Google has terabits of downlink and clever load balancing). That's not something even a well resourced city newspaper could set up at their headquarters without digging major fiber interconnects and hooking up to fiber lines going to the couple closest internet exchanges.

Edit: this assumes some level of BGP filtering and monitoring of what IPs send you packets, you really need cooperation from your upstream providers and your own BGP router to even survive this much.

> If "Big Tech" doesn't want your content, you're free to set up your own server.

People love to say this, but look at what happened to gab. There tried to exactly that and were deliberately singled out and blocked at nearly every turn. It's practically to the point that you have to set up a whole parallel society.

The fact is Big Tech has be come the de facto public square. And they all share the same bias: https://i.imgur.com/Si183zE.jpg

>https://www.google.com/search?q=free+speech+censorship+first...

Funnily enough, if you put those same terms in Brave Search you get this result that google notably excludes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship

Censorship is censorship regardless of whether it's done by the government or a private entity.

And even that doesn't mention Google's bias or domestic censorship because "Wikipedia is Badly Biased" according to Wikipedia Founder Larry Sanger: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

As a Green and former Democrat, my disappointment in Democrats' collusion and lying by omission exceeds that of my disappointment with the Republican Party.