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.
The difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is whether they're aligned with my views. When it's the government making the distinction, the difference is whether they're aligned with the government's views.
Furthermore, a rebellion or freedom fighters in a moral framework is when you have an authoritarian regime, aka “the monster that comes for us all” (Andor S2) that needs to be overcome.
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.”
War. It's called war. In ye olden days, military forces pillaged farms (for food) and sacked cities (for loot). Rarely, there have been short eras of formalized military v military conflicts within various cultures, but this was not the norm. In more modern times, military forces destroys enemy infrastructure to degrade their ability to make war directly target civilians to reduce the # of enemies and hurt morale (supposedly). While sad, one of the facts of life is that war leads to civilian deaths. Usually far more than direct military deaths.
I wish it were so, but the real answer is: because the law doesn't care about your technicalities, they care about what people think/feel, in particular what lawyers and judges think. And lawyers and judges feel that there is a difference between DDOSing a thing offline and politicking your way through the legal system to get a thing taken offline.
The difference is the lawyers and judges do not make any money from the DDOS achieving the same goal. Really, what the law cares about is money. Greed, plain and simple. Yes, what people think/feel factor into this _only_ because when the constituency (read: supporters) are put in an emotionally agitated state, they can be manipulated to believe just about anything, which helps pass things like batshit crazy budget cuts to critical public infrastructure or fuel witch-hunts for imaginary enemies in order to build an enforcement arm.
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.
> because when the constituency (read: supporters) are put in an emotionally agitated state, they can be manipulated to believe just about anything […]
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.
