The CDN/content provider ships servers to the ISP which puts them into their network. The provider is just providing connectivity and not involved on a content-level, so no MITM etc needed.
Mistaken attribution, or taking something that doesn't belong to you and saying it belongs to someone else is a core function of copyright law and should not be confusing to anyone who has dealt with it before.
What is your understanding of what license and rights the author was providing them - understanding this I can figure out where you are confused.
Not wrong, but that comes with promoting yourself on ideology grounds. If you want support because you are the plucky underdog community project that cares about people and are running ad campaigns how you are not evil big tech, then don't be surprised if people hold you to it. Mozilla is in this weird space where it wants to be both the good little guys and a proper Silicon Valley tech company, and those don't necessarily mix well.
It's a community matter posted in a public place, a non-statement with an immediate attempt to direct it to private conversation reads like trying to avoid attention to your mistakes (e.g. hypothetically you don't have to public admit you didn't do anything to check for guidelines to follow). More vibe-y, it all sounds very corporate, like any PR statement in response to criticism ever, or a manager writing to an employee in a big corp, not "humans working together in a community, and one of the humans is clearly pissed off right now".
Also while it's phrased as a question, it doesn't offer any alternative next step. So a better approach would be writing down the initial questions you have and then offer that you'd be open for a call if the OP prefers that. If they don't, they can immediately engage with your questions, and they are open to everybody else in the community. Whereas right now if they say "no, I don't want to call you" that's all you've given them.
(To be clear I can easily believe the writer of the response is not intending any of that and means well, but that's how it comes across)
Reading other comments, US folks seem divided; I am with you and the others on this side of the fence, I've seen this exact situation play out in corporate life many times. They are attempting to quiet a public discussion of dissent and dissatisfaction.
I’m an American. The response is coded as “do nothing”. The proper response here would be to say “we’re going to roll back the changes until we understand and fix things that are going wrong.” The individual may not have INTENDED the dismissive due to the way American corporate language has internalize “do nothing, take no position, take no risk, admit no fault” but it’s definitely the tone. Essentially this is a human problem: how do you deal with someone motivated by project passion rather than revenue goals or personal income? It happens ALL THE TIME with nonprofits interacting poorly with volunteers because the motivations and associated daily language are so divergent.
Then say so if someone complains about it? "Shoot, we accidentally ran it in the wrong mode, sorry about that, I'll look into someone fixing it ASAP" is a lot better than "We're sorry for how you feel".
Then at least try to sound like a genuine human that cares and not a PR response when reaching out. Offer a "you can call me if you want" vs making the call the expectation (it's phrased as a question but there is no other path offered).
