I'm going to assume you mean basically just CP for the something shady part in your final comment. Because the government and many people in many countries would call this conversation shady. They'd call unionization shady. Some might call Israel supporters doxxing anti-genocide protesters shady (I agree on that one). And of course I hope we all call the CP servers shady.

My only issue with all of this is how do you force right-wing, neoliberal, progressively more and more fascistic countries like the US, FR, UK, GE, etc. to ONLY target CP servers and never purposely target the (to sweep broadly here) "political severs." If it could be done that the genocidal hogs and CP hoarders get roped in- fantastic. But why the hell would France or the US bother with the first (or the latter, to be honest)? They'd surely be happy to dig into the asses of all those unionizing people though because "domestic terrorism! Sabotage!" or whatever other BS they can milk.

I guess my issue is I just look to how laws in "the west" have historically been applied against "shady" individuals. This stuff always disproportionately ends up being used against the left. That's why for practical reasons I feel like I have to support (actual) free speech because if there are laws that can in any sort of feasible way be used to restrict the left, then they will be. It's practically an inevitability when dealing with liberals and their "both sidesing." Some workers discussing fucking up their anti-union boss's machinery is seen the same as Nazis planning to mass murder people... actually they probably think it's worse somehow to do sabotage.

So, that's my incomplete thoughts on that stuff