3 ms·
> But it doesn’t always get much traction on here because both the founder and employees of cloudflare are quite popular users on HN. I don't think it gets muc
by hombre_fatal 6y ago
> But it doesn’t always get much traction on here because both the founder and employees of cloudflare are quite popular users on HN.
I don't think it gets much traction because you're barking up the wrong tree. Also, suggesting that YC is out to silence you and that nobody actually has a counter argument isn't very good for traction, either.
Until my website can't get taken off by a $5 rental of an internet-of-shit botnet, Cloudflare gives me and my users recourse against the bad actors of the world. (I also enjoy its host cloaking for my privacy)
You simply gloss over bad actors and attack one of the only solutions that works. The biggest threat to the open internet was its naive "there are no bad actors" design, not the people giving us one of the only bulwarks against bad design.
I agree with your last sentence that it would be nice to have a better middle ground, but notice that's not the "cloudflare bad" thesis of your comment.
The internet needs to be improved so that Cloudflare is redundant. It's not Cloudflare's fault that fundamental design oversights (like optional ISP egress filtering) have created a lucrative niche. And things like faster, unlimited data plans accessible by smart toasters and smart doorbells on top of the internet's naive architecture only entrenches Cloudflare further.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gjs278 6y agoI hosted a server that was attacked all the time over a comcast connection and was always able to figure it out without cloudflare proxy blocking for me
- wolco2 6y agoYour tone shines a light that perhaps you are on of those cloudflaire employees/fanboys who will drown out a warning. The parent poster had a point and your reply is reenforcing it.