Yes, really. I have never seen the free market be offered as "the solution" to a metaphoric asymmetric conflict. It seems like there is an inherent existential crisis that has prevented people (up until now) from suggesting the free market as a solution to asymmetric warfare. Is it really a free market when such large asymmetries exist between market participants?
That being said I find the suggestion that the colloquial definition of "asymmetric warfare" is "a fight that's slowly playing out" to be even stranger. Do you think that is the definition of "asymmetric warfare"? I must be reading different works than you because I cannot remember seeing "asymmetric warfare" used--and most certainly not commonly used--as a placeholder for a fight that is slowly playing out.
First you were arguing that this should not be called warfare. Now it seems you're arguing something completely different. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.
I never argued that this should not be called warfare. I said that I did not think that this was a good example of asymmetric warfare. To which you responded that "asymmetric warfare" was commonly used to describe a "fight that is slowly playing out." This was also confusing to me. I will restate my queries in order to clear up any confusion:
1. How is the CDN/ISP conflict an example of "asymmetric warfare"?
2. Do you think the definition of "asymmetric warfare" is "a fight
that is slowly playing out"?
That being said I find the suggestion that the colloquial definition of "asymmetric warfare" is "a fight that's slowly playing out" to be even stranger. Do you think that is the definition of "asymmetric warfare"? I must be reading different works than you because I cannot remember seeing "asymmetric warfare" used--and most certainly not commonly used--as a placeholder for a fight that is slowly playing out.