9 ms·
You're looking at it all wrong. From Cloudflare's point of view, this kind of blocking is a feature. Anyone doing legitimate web crawling, or offering alternati
by tarakat 4y ago
You're looking at it all wrong. From Cloudflare's point of view, this kind of blocking is a feature. Anyone doing legitimate web crawling, or offering alternative web services such as Starlink, now needs Cloudflare's permission.
Essentially, for a broad class of web-based businesses, they have made themselves gatekeepers. I'm sure they'll find a profitable use for this position. Charging outright would look bad, but investing in businesses that just happen to not run into Cloudflare-based trouble, but whose competitors do...
- tomxor 4y agoI'm familiar with that perspective, and biased towards it... Cloudflare is certainly in such a position, but they are a relatively young company (for their size and reach) and I've seen good things come from them. I'd guess the intent is unlikely to be anti-competitive or monopolistic, just over-aggressive. However regardless of intent their position does cause an absence of market forces to put pressure on fixing such issues - Similar to how it's become acceptable to have downtime when it's on AWS, because "everyone is affected".
- hypertele-Xii 4y agoIt's true that any wall around you that protects you from something unavoidably comes with a gate that someone else guards, unless you want to guard your gate personally (and that entails filtering out armies of spambots, worst case manually). As with any power and control you delegate to any entity, only time and good behavior will earn them your trust. That's theoretically what companies are competing for, your loyalty.