3 ms·
Google and Amazon are two of the providers that: A) Provide VPNs themselves to the general public. [e.g. Their web proxies] B) Provide infrastructure used by
by fweespeech 11y ago
Google and Amazon are two of the providers that:
A) Provide VPNs themselves to the general public. [e.g. Their web proxies]
B) Provide infrastructure used by VPN providers.
So yes, I was including those two.
Microsoft provides infrastructure to VPN providers as well via Azure, so they also qualify.
Facebook would not.
Other providers that qualify:
Every hosting company that provides dedicated or VPS. [e.g. Linode, OVH, Hetzner]
I just don't bother publicly calling people out on what appears to be a systemic problem. A problem that, frankly, Tor is no worse than any of the other actors.
To me, the odd behavior is the fact CF seems to treat them as bad actors despite the fact they are an insubstantial portion of the problem.
- mike_hearn 11y agoGoogle and Amazon do have extensive anti-abuse teams. So do hosting providers, to varying degrees. It may not seem like it when you're receiving abuse from those networks anyway, but it'd be much, much worse if they weren't doing the work at all.
- fweespeech 11y agoYeah, but in my experience, their extensive anti-abuse teams still end up with as much abuse [proportional to overall traffic] as Tor, if not more. So to me, I don't understand why people complain about Tor when the real problem is the fact the larger networks simply take too damned long and throw far, far greater problems at people. To me, the idea of blocking/throttling Tor more heavily than any other provider seems patently absurd for that reason. I understand other people may have different experiences but that doesn't create a great deal of sympathy from me when a simple white list option takes 4-5 years.