4 ms·
"Well just because they have access to some data doesn't mean they use it." This reads very naive in my opinion. But no you didn't understand much of what i in
by thinkMOAR 10y ago
"Well just because they have access to some data doesn't mean they use it." This reads very naive in my opinion.
But no you didn't understand much of what i intended to bring across and even created a point for me i did write. I did not say they should not have access to your data.
I wrote, for the amount traffic information (if you can't or don't understand how to monetise that, please google a bit), they should _consider offering_ the service for free, including features that matter.
And to block something what do you have to do first? 'Check' if the condition to block is true or false. If country == x move request to the nearest recycle-bin seems to be the most efficient action, requiring the least of anything.
So it would make more sense in my opinion if it was vice versa, block countries for the default subscription, filter more 'advanced' as premium feature.
For some reason i doubt you have ever enabled CF in a ddos situation?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pfg 10y agoI don't like the fact that a significant percentage of page views on the Internet can be intercepted by a single organization either, but I think it's a bit weird to be concerned about privacy while arguing they should pivot to monetizing the traffic they see rather than continue to charge for the service they offer.