content: You are correct,  Users whose speech is stifled by one upstream provider can sometimes switch to a different service after being censored.  This solution is not only time- and resource-consuming, however, but probably only temporary as censorship-seeking parties chase them from one provider to the next.  Users should look for a chain of providers that is committed to scrutinizing censorship requests, notifying and working with users to assess the situation, and defending customers when a request is illegitimate.  This is what I was referring to in regards to having multiple providers and using round robin DNS. In my town I can get Internet from community owned fiber, DSL through the phone company and Cable Internet. In this instance, I'm not talking about setting up a single website, I'm talking about setting up a publically available private DNS server that correlates IP addresses of websites people submit to their IP address or set of IP addresses that their website is hosted from. Using round robin DNS, we could have replicating DNS servers setup across the world that are replicated from a private IP address instead of the public one used to broadcast DNS, making it much harder for (((them))) to block. In a catastrophic situation, another server takes over as master. Yes, they'll still be able to take down individual websites (IP addresses) and they'll still be able to push for censorship. I'm not saying this is a 100% perfect solution that solves every problem imaginable. I'm just saying that this could be used to eliminate the power of Google to simply remove websites from their DNS, it also removes power from domain registrars like GoDaddy who remove domains of websites (((they))) don't like.