That responsibility only goes as far as other people are willing to block them for not doing it. There's no law of the internet that says you have to, but if your customers can't access your service because their ISP or whatever blocked you, that's when it's your responsibility to yourself to clean it up. If you're too big to block, then it's OK to ignore abuse.
The internet is a community. Some people in a community feel that they have no responsibility to anyone but themselves, which is why we need laws and regulations.
We want service providers on the internet to police themselves and make sure that they're not turning a blind eye to crimes taking place right on their own servers because the alternative is that laws and regulation come into play. There's an argument that internet companies that are too big to block could still be negligent, an accessory to crimes, liable for the very real and significant damages the poor management of their service enabled just so that they could save a little money, etc.
Just like with banks, there are people who would say that if a company is too big to fail/be blocked then they are too big to exist and should be broken up.
Personally, I'd rather that a service provider just do a better job keeping their corner of the internet clean, keeping the people who use their services safer, and preventing their services/equipment/IP space from being used to carry out criminal acts.
In the end it'd improve their service, improve their image, make the internet a safer place, and as a bonus it would force criminals to waste their time looking for the a new company who'll be too cheap/lazy to kick them off their services. Hopefully they'll eventually end up only being able to find ones that the rest of us feel we can block.
The internet _was_ a community. Now it's a wall of commercial property, riddled with victimising criminals and advertisements that watch you. There are still some communities in there, but the bulk of it is a set of actors with no social interests in common with the users.
The abuse mechanism you describe exists in theory, but... commercial.
There is community between the NOCs of tier 1 ISPs, but they mainly care about routing.
In your picture, I'm imagining, say, CenturyLink stomping on a retail ISP, and I question whether this pans out like swatting. Can I get someone taken down by abusing abuse reports?
> I question whether this pans out like swatting. Can I get someone taken down by abusing abuse reports?
Not generally, no. Typically, abuse departments at ISPs don't blindly cut off people's internet access just because someone complains. They require evidence (server logs, message headers, etc) and there will be an investigation as well as multiple communications between an ISP and a user being accused of violating the ISP's terms of service. The same is true when the issue is between ISPs and their upstream providers. Keep in mind too that for both ISPs and upstream providers, everyone is naturally and strongly incentivized to not cancel the accounts of the customers who pay them.
There is one situation where false reports can get someone taken down. DMCA notices have this potential. ISPs can face billions in fines if they refuse to permanently disconnect their customers from the internet based on nothing more than unproven/unsubstantiated allegations made by third party vendors with a long history of sending wildly inaccurate DMCA notices. So far, media companies have been winning in courts and ISPs have been losing or (more often) settling outside of court. Everyone is still waiting to see how the case against Cox ends (https://torrentfreak.com/cox-requests-rehearing-of-piracy-ca...)
