3 ms·

Why is this downvoted? I understand the second paragraph might be slightly aggressive/inflammatory but the first paragraph alone is a legitimate critique. I wo

Why is this downvoted? I understand the second paragraph might be slightly aggressive/inflammatory but the first paragraph alone is a legitimate critique. I would really appreciate if those who disagree would provide counter arguments, as both sides here offer the potential for an interesting (and important) dialogue about CF and their role in global Internet/WWW infrastructure.

verisimi 5y ago
Thank you. I appreciate you saying that the second paragraph is aggressive, but I think it would be naive to think that it isn't possible, or even probable - if there's money in play. A lot of anti-virus protection companies did do exactly this - create the viruses that made their products sell. Its really not without precedent.
- atdrummond 5y ago
  I didn’t personally find it aggressive, I was just attempting to understand the motivations of your down voters.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- meowface 5y ago
  >it would be naive to think that it isn't [...] probable It's probable that Cloudflare is a sophisticated criminal enterprise maliciously DDoSing prospective and existing customers so that they sign up for their (typically free) DDoS mitigation service? It's possible, but this weird logic of "if there's an incentive to do something bad, then someone's probably doing something bad" - with absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever - is the logic of conspiracy theories (e.g. 9/11 = inside job, Sandy Hook shooting = hoax, COVID-19 = fake virus to control the public).
nightpool 5y ago
"What may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence". If someone is going to make the claim that Cloudflare is running an illegal protection racket and funds DDOS attacks against their customer's websites, then the burden of proof is on them to substantiate that claim. Otherwise, it's just pointless bad-faith remarks. And we can't just take the first paragraph in isolation—it depends on the second paragraph for logical support. How could Cloudflare prevent any non-Cloudflare site from being seen, or prevent any non-Cloudflare users from accessing the internet? There is no requirement that anyone use Cloudflare—they just happen to be the best game in town. If you believe otherwise, you have to assert arguments that support your position, you can't just state your thesis and expect people to guess what your reasoning is.
- atdrummond 5y ago
  As far as I can tell, he: 1. Never claimed this is actually happening - just that it’s a possibility he’s considered. I don’t think that these kinds of ruminations are so odious and dangerous as to necessitate them being hidden or removed from view. 2. Never claimed it was illegal. In fact, I’m certain the operation as described by OP would be legal (in many jurisdictions) unless there was another component involved, such as identifiable price gouging.
- verisimi 5y ago
  We're not in court. But, as I said elsewhere, I think it is pretty understandable corporate behaviour that has been done previously by anti-virus companies. Why would you not take an opportunity like this in order to create a drama where you are the corporate hero, and have people knocking down your door for your product?
UncleMeat 5y ago
The second paragraph is more than "slightly aggressive" in my mind and it ruins the post. It is a wild theory based in no information at all. Cloudflare has a pretty coherent business model already.
nsonha 5y ago
Why pick on Cloudflare, what is it about edge computing that makes them particularly well positioned for this kind of abuse and AWS isn't?

verisimi 5y ago

Thank you. I appreciate you saying that the second paragraph is aggressive, but I think it would be naive to think that it isn't possible, or even probable - if there's money in play. A lot of anti-virus protection companies did do exactly this - create the viruses that made their products sell. Its really not without precedent.

atdrummond 5y ago
I didn’t personally find it aggressive, I was just attempting to understand the motivations of your down voters.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
meowface 5y ago
>it would be naive to think that it isn't [...] probable It's probable that Cloudflare is a sophisticated criminal enterprise maliciously DDoSing prospective and existing customers so that they sign up for their (typically free) DDoS mitigation service? It's possible, but this weird logic of "if there's an incentive to do something bad, then someone's probably doing something bad" - with absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever - is the logic of conspiracy theories (e.g. 9/11 = inside job, Sandy Hook shooting = hoax, COVID-19 = fake virus to control the public).

nightpool 5y ago

"What may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence". If someone is going to make the claim that Cloudflare is running an illegal protection racket and funds DDOS attacks against their customer's websites, then the burden of proof is on them to substantiate that claim. Otherwise, it's just pointless bad-faith remarks. And we can't just take the first paragraph in isolation—it depends on the second paragraph for logical support. How could Cloudflare prevent any non-Cloudflare site from being seen, or prevent any non-Cloudflare users from accessing the internet? There is no requirement that anyone use Cloudflare—they just happen to be the best game in town. If you believe otherwise, you have to assert arguments that support your position, you can't just state your thesis and expect people to guess what your reasoning is.

atdrummond 5y ago
As far as I can tell, he: 1. Never claimed this is actually happening - just that it’s a possibility he’s considered. I don’t think that these kinds of ruminations are so odious and dangerous as to necessitate them being hidden or removed from view. 2. Never claimed it was illegal. In fact, I’m certain the operation as described by OP would be legal (in many jurisdictions) unless there was another component involved, such as identifiable price gouging.
verisimi 5y ago
We're not in court. But, as I said elsewhere, I think it is pretty understandable corporate behaviour that has been done previously by anti-virus companies. Why would you not take an opportunity like this in order to create a drama where you are the corporate hero, and have people knocking down your door for your product?

UncleMeat 5y ago

The second paragraph is more than "slightly aggressive" in my mind and it ruins the post. It is a wild theory based in no information at all. Cloudflare has a pretty coherent business model already.

nsonha 5y ago

Why pick on Cloudflare, what is it about edge computing that makes them particularly well positioned for this kind of abuse and AWS isn't?