4 ms·
"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 protecti
by 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 agoAs 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 agoWe'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?