[flagged]
Assuming that: the use of money in order to achieve a political outcome is an abuse of power that happens to be legal (I agree to a degree).
The equivalent use of DDOS would be to influence the decision making process in a way that leads to the same outcome. And it would have to be a way of operating that is generally accepted and legal in the first place.
An authoritarian regime has no representation of the population, has no need for feedback, and is ruled by a few. In the work of Thomas Payne he says “When all rights have been taken away, the right of rebellion has been made perfect.”
Fair play to the Ukrainian forces who are doing a fantastic job of minimising Civilian deaths. Road map for the future[?]
I know plenty of lawyers that would absolutely disagree with your first sentence, "the law doesn't care about technicalities." Oh, but they do. Technicalities are their tools of exploitation.
That’s democracy, at its most basic. Often, it means people with little access to education, but with a lot at stake, casting votes that go against their own interests. And in the U.S., it’s not as if party leadership on either side truly represents them anyway.
The upside, though, is significant: when power shifts, we usually don’t resort to violence. That simple fact - the peaceful transfer of power - provides the stability necessary for society to function and potentially thrive.