6 ms·

Any sufficiently large and centralized infrastructure (like Cloudflare is becoming) has an incentive to engage in user-hostile behaviors. So far, I personally

Any sufficiently large and centralized infrastructure (like Cloudflare is becoming) has an incentive to engage in user-hostile behaviors. So far, I personally think most people would say they've been mostly benevolent. But they are a public company, and a new CEO can have different priorities. For example, (fairly or not) the public perception of Google has slowly been diminishing over time.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
>So far, I personally think most people would say they've been mostly benevolent. They're denying access to no-JS users to many sites.
- aeyes 6y ago
  The owner of the site is denying access, Cloudflare just provides a service. The owner can turn the feature off.
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    No, I can't even get through to the site itself past Cloudflare's gate...
    - yandie 6y ago
      The gate is configured by the website owner. Not to defend the frustrating experience - but I personally prefer my website to not be attacked by bot. I'm just a happy Cloudflare customer.
      - kortilla 6y ago
        Cloudflare being the enabler of a user-hostile technology doesn’t make them benevolent, no matter how happy the customers.
        yandie 6y ago
        We can sit here and argue all day around this and we still won't reach an agreement. On one hand, as a website operator, I want to prevent DDOS, spam etc... for my website. I can implement these solutions myself and do a bad job, or I can use Cloudflare that solves most of then. It's probably going to rule out some of the users as yourself - which is a shame. But until there's a better way to know that a visitor from the internet is not trying to attack the website, I'd have to use something like Cloudflare. On the other hand, it's not like it's that hard to leave Cloudflare for me - so if there's a better alternative without causing legitimate users pain, I'd be happy to jump on board.
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        I don't think anyone is arguing that preventing DDoS attacks is desirable. It's about cutting off access to a small segment of users just because it is easier that way. I think that, similar to wheelchair access, we will continue to push for access to all devices and users as much as possible. This attitude of "it's just 1%" or "it's just 0.1%" will become just as unacceptable as saying "well, there are only 3 people who need access ramps out of 30, so they need to suck it up and deal with it." It's up to you which side you want to be on.
        maxgashkov 6y ago
        Disabling JS is a conscious decision. Using wheelchair is not — you cannot just flip a switch and walk once your spine is fucked.
oefrha 6y ago
> Any sufficiently large and centralized infrastructure archive.org is exactly that. With rather poor performance no less.
patcon 6y ago
Agreed. Just a matter of time, personnel, and offering price Any reality that becomes more adjacent in possibility-space today, is better conceived as the seed of a future you might find yourself living in. Most any protective institution is just a set of measures working against this process -- moving things away from us in possibility-space So worrying about this stuff is fair game. The only way I'd not worry, is if there was a complementary protective measure that protected us from the future we don't want. But that wasn't part of the announcement, so we're probably all a little bit less secure in getting the world we want. (EDIT: Though maybe funding archive.org would count as that...?)
- Drdrdrq 6y ago
  > (EDIT: Though maybe funding archive.org would count as that...?) That reminds me a bit on how Google "funds" Mozilla. Not the same, but when dealing with the devil...
  - derefr 6y ago
    I've always thought that people think about this backwards. Every dollar the devil gives you, is one dollar less the devil has to spend on devilry. Especially when that dollar is just charity, and the devil isn't getting anything out of it. But it also applies when the devil is getting something out of it that satisfies their preferences, as long as that satisfaction isn't displacing a need that frees up any of their other dollars to now be dedicated toward devilry. Or, to put that another way: if you can charge [infamous politician] a million dollars for a fancy-but-useless painting, you absolutely should do so. Now you have a million dollars; they're out a million dollars; and all they have is a painting!
    - gbear605 6y ago
      The issue comes when the politician comes back to you and says “Hey, I gave you a great deal on that painting, can you do a favor for me?” Extracting money from bad sources is good as long as you absolutely positively don’t extract anything else. That’s hard to do in any circumstance. However, in this situation I think it’s fine and worth it.
nuker 6y ago
> But they are a public company, and a new CEO can have different priorities. And CF have access to decrypted SSL for many sites. Stuff like passwords, personal details, keys and tokens.

forgotmypw17 6y ago

>So far, I personally think most people would say they've been mostly benevolent. They're denying access to no-JS users to many sites.

aeyes 6y ago
The owner of the site is denying access, Cloudflare just provides a service. The owner can turn the feature off.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  No, I can't even get through to the site itself past Cloudflare's gate...
  - yandie 6y ago
    The gate is configured by the website owner. Not to defend the frustrating experience - but I personally prefer my website to not be attacked by bot. I'm just a happy Cloudflare customer.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      Cloudflare being the enabler of a user-hostile technology doesn’t make them benevolent, no matter how happy the customers.
      - yandie 6y ago
        We can sit here and argue all day around this and we still won't reach an agreement. On one hand, as a website operator, I want to prevent DDOS, spam etc... for my website. I can implement these solutions myself and do a bad job, or I can use Cloudflare that solves most of then. It's probably going to rule out some of the users as yourself - which is a shame. But until there's a better way to know that a visitor from the internet is not trying to attack the website, I'd have to use something like Cloudflare. On the other hand, it's not like it's that hard to leave Cloudflare for me - so if there's a better alternative without causing legitimate users pain, I'd be happy to jump on board.
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        I don't think anyone is arguing that preventing DDoS attacks is desirable. It's about cutting off access to a small segment of users just because it is easier that way. I think that, similar to wheelchair access, we will continue to push for access to all devices and users as much as possible. This attitude of "it's just 1%" or "it's just 0.1%" will become just as unacceptable as saying "well, there are only 3 people who need access ramps out of 30, so they need to suck it up and deal with it." It's up to you which side you want to be on.
        maxgashkov 6y ago
        Disabling JS is a conscious decision. Using wheelchair is not — you cannot just flip a switch and walk once your spine is fucked.

oefrha 6y ago

> Any sufficiently large and centralized infrastructure archive.org is exactly that. With rather poor performance no less.

patcon 6y ago

Agreed. Just a matter of time, personnel, and offering price Any reality that becomes more adjacent in possibility-space today, is better conceived as the seed of a future you might find yourself living in. Most any protective institution is just a set of measures working against this process -- moving things away from us in possibility-space So worrying about this stuff is fair game. The only way I'd not worry, is if there was a complementary protective measure that protected us from the future we don't want. But that wasn't part of the announcement, so we're probably all a little bit less secure in getting the world we want. (EDIT: Though maybe funding archive.org would count as that...?)

Drdrdrq 6y ago
> (EDIT: Though maybe funding archive.org would count as that...?) That reminds me a bit on how Google "funds" Mozilla. Not the same, but when dealing with the devil...
- derefr 6y ago
  I've always thought that people think about this backwards. Every dollar the devil gives you, is one dollar less the devil has to spend on devilry. Especially when that dollar is just charity, and the devil isn't getting anything out of it. But it also applies when the devil is getting something out of it that satisfies their preferences, as long as that satisfaction isn't displacing a need that frees up any of their other dollars to now be dedicated toward devilry. Or, to put that another way: if you can charge [infamous politician] a million dollars for a fancy-but-useless painting, you absolutely should do so. Now you have a million dollars; they're out a million dollars; and all they have is a painting!
  - gbear605 6y ago
    The issue comes when the politician comes back to you and says “Hey, I gave you a great deal on that painting, can you do a favor for me?” Extracting money from bad sources is good as long as you absolutely positively don’t extract anything else. That’s hard to do in any circumstance. However, in this situation I think it’s fine and worth it.

nuker 6y ago

> But they are a public company, and a new CEO can have different priorities. And CF have access to decrypted SSL for many sites. Stuff like passwords, personal details, keys and tokens.