Sure, but at the same time if a "biological contamination" were to happen elsewhere on earth there's no way the US would be able to protect itself alone from also being exposed.
Flip side argument: I have moderated forums and bulletin boards going back to around 2000. Every time we were "attacked" or "raided" the people would IMMEDIATELY create new accounts after being actively banned (telling the user they are banned, and publicly labeling their "rank" as BANNED). When we switched to shadow bans (I think it was termed "global ignore"), the attacks would immediately stop, because the [usual] script kiddie / troll just thinks he isn't getting any bites, and leaves. Of course a few figured out what was going on, but it was seriously one or two orders of magnitude better in terms of manageability, specifically dealing with trolls and spammers.
That said, I would never support something such as disallowing shadow banning in an internet bill of rights. That goes way overboard and just ties the hands of legitimate platform operators.
Congratulations on your success! I have never heard of Webflow, but after checking out your site it seems pretty slick. I will consider it for future projects.
As a network architect this seems pretty cool to me - incentivizing individual node/router operators. How is billing & payment reconciliation handled between parties?
