12 ms·

No, sorry this is 100% on you. You should have implemented throttling, and daily query limits. Once you put something on the internet for free, you can't compla

No, sorry this is 100% on you. You should have implemented throttling, and daily query limits. Once you put something on the internet for free, you can't complain then if people are using it.

misnome 3y ago
You absolutely can. Nobody has an obligation to serve you if you are an asshole.
- johnisgood 3y ago
  Why complain instead of mitigating? Or why not complain AND mitigate at the very least? Do not serve it to assholes?
  - misnome 3y ago
    > Or why not complain AND mitigate at the very least? You mean, like they say they have been trying to do, in the complaint?
    - johnisgood 3y ago
      I am replying to you saying that "you absolutely can [complain]". The comment to which I replied simply states that you can complain. Sure, you can. shrugs
  - wiseowise 3y ago
    I’ll never understand “no complain” argument. Person has a valid complaint, goddamnit, they have all the rights to complain.
    - johnisgood 3y ago
      Sure, feel free to complain away if that makes you feel better.
usrbinbash 3y ago
> you can't complain then if people are using it. Yes he can complain, and bombarding a free service for unlimited requests isn't okay. For starters because the people doing that, will usually be among the first to cry when the free service stops being free, blocks their requests or suddenly requires an API key.
- ranguna 3y ago
  > bombarding a free service for unlimited requests isn't okay Hummmm.... OP's website on https://getjsonip.com/ https://getjsonip.com/ says: > Supports unlimited requests and is free. Seems like we have a bit of a contradiction here.
  - usrbinbash 3y ago
    I see no contradiction. There is a difference between gracefully and responsibly using something that is offered for free, and just bombarding it with requests like no tomorrow. People can of course do the latter. But then they don't get to complain when at some point, the available offerings present walls of legalese instead of a few simple and clear statements, and the user experience goes from seamless and easy to "Click here to register an API Key"
    - ranguna 3y ago
      It all depends on the nature of the work you are doing. One thing is to own a service that's used by 10 MAU and you extend the service with a job that calls the OP's service 100 times a second. That's bad, you are using way more than you need. Another thing is to own a mobile app used by 10M MAU and you embed the OP's service into the app. That's not bad intention, you just added a new service to your app. The problem is that the OP's definition of "unlimited" is not really unlimited.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - revolvingocelot 3y ago
CPLX 3y ago
I mean, we've all got a right to grievances.
GuB-42 3y ago
I would have agreed if it was a piece of source code. For example if you put a bit of code on the internet using a permissive license and it is good, don't complain that some tech giant took all your work for themselves without giving you anything in return. By choosing that licence you explicitly told the world that doing this is fine. Also, using someone else source code doesn't incur recurring costs on the author's part. But here, you are actually taking resources from the author. That's something that is not only rude, but also puts the user at risk. The author is really nice for maintaining service, he could have just stopped it, or even served malicious payloads. After all, there is no contract saying that he should be nice. Here, despite the strong language, he is trying to stay nice instead of just cutting a service that many people rely on, which he has all right to do. Throttling and daily query limits would make the service unreliable and not so different from cutting it off completely. Keep in mind that it is not a single user abusing the service, it is many users who got redirected there by an abusive app. He could have used the "API key" that is suggested here, but it is a hurdle that will affect usability.
- ricardobayes 3y ago
  Yeah maybe, but in this day and age it's completely unreasonable to expect anything from users. You need to expect the worst and if your system is not prepared for it, then sorry, it's badly designed. There are many anti-abuse measures and if you're deliberately not using any of them, then that's on you.

No, sorry this is 100% on you. You should have implemented throttling, and daily query limits. Once you put something on the internet for free, you can't complain then if people are using it.

misnome 3y ago

You absolutely can. Nobody has an obligation to serve you if you are an asshole.

johnisgood 3y ago
Why complain instead of mitigating? Or why not complain AND mitigate at the very least? Do not serve it to assholes?
- misnome 3y ago
  > Or why not complain AND mitigate at the very least? You mean, like they say they have been trying to do, in the complaint?
  - johnisgood 3y ago
    I am replying to you saying that "you absolutely can [complain]". The comment to which I replied simply states that you can complain. Sure, you can. shrugs
- wiseowise 3y ago
  I’ll never understand “no complain” argument. Person has a valid complaint, goddamnit, they have all the rights to complain.
  - johnisgood 3y ago
    Sure, feel free to complain away if that makes you feel better.

usrbinbash 3y ago

> you can't complain then if people are using it. Yes he can complain, and bombarding a free service for unlimited requests isn't okay. For starters because the people doing that, will usually be among the first to cry when the free service stops being free, blocks their requests or suddenly requires an API key.

ranguna 3y ago
> bombarding a free service for unlimited requests isn't okay Hummmm.... OP's website on https://getjsonip.com/ https://getjsonip.com/ says: > Supports unlimited requests and is free. Seems like we have a bit of a contradiction here.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  I see no contradiction. There is a difference between gracefully and responsibly using something that is offered for free, and just bombarding it with requests like no tomorrow. People can of course do the latter. But then they don't get to complain when at some point, the available offerings present walls of legalese instead of a few simple and clear statements, and the user experience goes from seamless and easy to "Click here to register an API Key"
  - ranguna 3y ago
    It all depends on the nature of the work you are doing. One thing is to own a service that's used by 10 MAU and you extend the service with a job that calls the OP's service 100 times a second. That's bad, you are using way more than you need. Another thing is to own a mobile app used by 10M MAU and you embed the OP's service into the app. That's not bad intention, you just added a new service to your app. The problem is that the OP's definition of "unlimited" is not really unlimited.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- revolvingocelot 3y ago

CPLX 3y ago

I mean, we've all got a right to grievances.

GuB-42 3y ago

I would have agreed if it was a piece of source code. For example if you put a bit of code on the internet using a permissive license and it is good, don't complain that some tech giant took all your work for themselves without giving you anything in return. By choosing that licence you explicitly told the world that doing this is fine. Also, using someone else source code doesn't incur recurring costs on the author's part. But here, you are actually taking resources from the author. That's something that is not only rude, but also puts the user at risk. The author is really nice for maintaining service, he could have just stopped it, or even served malicious payloads. After all, there is no contract saying that he should be nice. Here, despite the strong language, he is trying to stay nice instead of just cutting a service that many people rely on, which he has all right to do. Throttling and daily query limits would make the service unreliable and not so different from cutting it off completely. Keep in mind that it is not a single user abusing the service, it is many users who got redirected there by an abusive app. He could have used the "API key" that is suggested here, but it is a hurdle that will affect usability.

ricardobayes 3y ago
Yeah maybe, but in this day and age it's completely unreasonable to expect anything from users. You need to expect the worst and if your system is not prepared for it, then sorry, it's badly designed. There are many anti-abuse measures and if you're deliberately not using any of them, then that's on you.