> You don’t think leveraging your site to DDOS someone is a problem?

It is, but it's one of the only tools they have to prevent the doxxing site to being reachable.

> Do people not also deserve to be protected from being DDOSed?

You mean the person doing the doing should be protected ?

>Do people also not deserve to not have their internet traffic be used to DDOS someone?

Yes, it should have been opt-in. But unless you doesn't run JS, you kinda give right to the website you visit to run arbitrary code anyway.

Not defending any party, it's basic ethological expectation: a creature that try to beat an other should expect aggressive response in return.

Of course, never aggressing anyone and transform any aggression agaisnt self into an opportunity to acculturate the aggressor into someone with the same empathic behavior is a paragon of virtuous entity. But paragons of virtue is not the median norm, by definition.

You don't think non-consensually revealing somebody's identity is a problem?

Resorting to DDoS is not pretty, but "why is my violent behavior met with violence" is a little oblivious and reversal of victim and perpetrator roles.

I think this is a weak framing. Lots of things are moral or immoral under specific circumstances. We should protect people from being murdered. I think murder is usually wrong. But we also likely agree that there are circumstances in which killing someone can be justified. If we can find context for taking a life, I'm quite sure we can find context for a DoS.

There's an old legal maxim "in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis", that is "in a case of mutual fault the position of the defending party is the better one."

People do not ever have any sort of moral or natural right to not get hit after starting shit.