Sure, as a business decision it must have made perfect sense at the time - Akamai had bigger (paying) customers to protect. But that doesn't make the optics around it any less terrible.
The message they were telegraphing with their combined actions was effectively: "We protect some of the largest corporations on the planet... but do not have the resources to keep an individual journalist and blogger online. Your business could be next."
Whoever made the decision to pull service to Krebs should have also thrown their weight around to get those ads off of Krebs's website, because the compound outlook must have been hideous. (How do you get your ads off of a website without causing any more animosity? You quickly renegotiate an exclusivity deal and then choose not to run any ads at all on it.)
The message they were telegraphing with their combined actions was effectively: "We protect some of the largest corporations on the planet... but do not have the resources to keep an individual journalist and blogger online. Your business could be next."
Whoever made the decision to pull service to Krebs should have also thrown their weight around to get those ads off of Krebs's website, because the compound outlook must have been hideous. (How do you get your ads off of a website without causing any more animosity? You quickly renegotiate an exclusivity deal and then choose not to run any ads at all on it.)