content: No it doesn't. This represents an increasingly more powerful cabal of politicized individuals who are deciding what should be allowed on the internet. A personal grudge should not constitute the right to silence arbitrarily. They should not set a precedence like this over political disagreements. If they were so butthurt over the endorsement, they should have stated that they have nothing to do with these people publicly while reaffirming their principles that support a free internet. At the very least they should have some internal review process that determines whether the individuals breached their terms of service beyond, "We don't want to be associated with them, so we destroyed them." I agree that it was probably unwise for DS to poke the bear, but it doesn't make what CF did right. Are they not fair game to criticize? Will they shut down every site where individuals who endorse opinions or ideas they disagree with express themselves? Are we next? It would be different if there were alternatives to their service, but there really isn't. This is the slippery slope in action...