This reminds me of the time a host turned off my website because I had been “hacked” … it turned out someone had posted some innocuous SPAM on my wiki on an unused page where proper rel=nofollow had been added. I tried to no avail to explain to them that this was not an issue and not a hack.
Hosting providers love the labor-saving liability-prevention of automated flagging systems so much that the manual review processes become attenuated.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve literally been banned by scribd for uploading public domain material or cutups of the same: their review process consists of emailing an unpaid intern who tells you he doesn’t have permission to reverse the flagger’s decision no matter what the legal situation is. (I don’t know why they have a person doing this. Why not just have the “dispute” link redirect to a static page consisting of the words “Haha NOPE”?)
The most concerning part is DigitalOcean will shut off your server and then contact you second. There should be at least a day given to respond before your service gets shut off.
On the other hand, if your server actually got hacked due to some security vulnerability, you might be happy they blocked it immediately. It would also potentially stop spreading.
They prob. do that for a bigger customer.
I suspect that anti-phishing policies are derived from safe harbor policies at most web hosting companies (since they both involve shutting down or making inaccessible other people’s files or services). DMCA takedowns are performed immediately & then investigated (or never investigated, more likely) in order to avoid liability under safe harbor provisions, since there’s a time limit of either 24 or 48 hours (I’ve forgotten which).
If the author actually was a professional spammer/phisher, and was dumb enough to be paying for his own hosting from a place with anti-phishing policies, then he could use the 24 hours warning to register new accounts & move his operation, so even if you want to take the position that DigitalOcean’s primary goal is to be proactive against phishers / protect users rather than to cover their ass, there’s a case to be made.
Certainly, under these circumstances the behavior is user- (and customer-) hostile, but that’s business: as long as you’re sure they’ll pay you, hostility doesn’t affect the bottom line, and you can feel free to alienate customers in direct proportion to other kinds of risk. Running a public IPFS gateway on a rented machine is an unusual behavior (of dubious utility, since running a private gateway is so easy & pure-JS gateways that run in the browser exist for those who can’t), & it’s unlikely that DigitalOcean is going to adapt their policies to support any kind of open gateway or proxy.