I think the author is taking the legalese too seriously and reading too far into the phrase “otherwise objectionable.”
This is just a standard abuse TOS. Yes, “otherwise objectionable” casts a wide net, but I think in the legal understanding of the sentence it’s supposed to refer to “similarly egregious things that a judge would agree were in this same relative severity of abusive content.”
A judge wouldn’t simply allow “otherwise objectionable” to mean “literally anything.”
I would also point out that if you host abusive/illegal content on your own PC your ISP can shut you down just the same.
This is just a standard abuse TOS. Yes, “otherwise objectionable” casts a wide net, but I think in the legal understanding of the sentence it’s supposed to refer to “similarly egregious things that a judge would agree were in this same relative severity of abusive content.”
A judge wouldn’t simply allow “otherwise objectionable” to mean “literally anything.”
I would also point out that if you host abusive/illegal content on your own PC your ISP can shut you down just the same.