Although it’s not an investigative journalism article, there are many arguments why it should be – purportedly users are acquainted with mainstream opinion more than they know. In this case, threatening as an excuse to block household (i. e. home) internet by house admin is vague, at least weird because there are many means why intrusion is a better solution than repressive behavior.
To say the least, self-referencing arguments such as publicity, exemplified by this article itself are cybernetics open, emphasizing the nature and advance direction towards redirected material. Publicizing somebody’s sins like household members having been blocked by MAC is only making things more clear, but it doesn’t mean the solution will be reached. Business Economics theory (and practical research) says that business is dependent on prerequisites, but their shortage of supply does only mean that business is going to be destructed before it announces insolvency, if not hurried up. In this case, it’s incumbent material to state different things, stemming besides from stack flow deviations, usually referred arrays of objects, namely datasets. The question that makes this block ineffective is not a wide announcement of something, but a business entity type – for profit startup, seeking better contracts & continuous delivery. When it considers the LAN/wifi connection is poor enough to declare household administration living below the poverty level, then sustainability indices are no longer applicable.
In conclusion, Red Cross & Caritas help could be the fit for them, because the startup, possessing only LAMP laptop & external LUKS HDD is more likely be playing GOT, Conflict of Nations and similar social Oauth 2 logins and Facebook platform-based games rather than looking around for homemade (domestic) solutions.