4 ms·

It's not a complaint of how you (or I) can self-host and avoid Cloudflare, it's a complaint about how so many others use do Cloudflare. Especially what happens

by xethos 2y ago

It's not a complaint of how you (or I) can self-host and avoid Cloudflare, it's a complaint about how so many others use do Cloudflare. Especially what happens if Cloudflare doesn't like the way your IP address or browser look, or doubt your humanity.

dylan604 2y ago
This was my response as well. The number of people hosting websites that large numbers of people visit is much smaller than people of this forum would like to admit. The vast majority of web users don't visit Joe's self-hosted blog, they view Joe's content on the various social platforms. It doesn't make sense for Joe to host his own site.
- IgorPartola 2y ago
  Ok so if it doesn’t make sense for Joe to host his website because it’s just not interesting enough for people to visit then how is others using different CDNs than CloudFlare going to solve that?
  - xethos 2y ago
    We (or I, at least) aren't asking Joe Blogman to host his own site (though if he does, I'll cheer them on just the same). We're asking other, bigger sites, the ones that large groups of people visit, to avoid Cloudflare. These tend to be the "infrastructure" websites; the ones that, if you can't access them, you have a harder time that day because you have an actual task you have to do - and the company behind the website that Cloudflare is blocking you from, has reduced other avenues of completing the task because "customers can use the website". It is in this way that Cloudflare is bad. It's bad for consumers being blocked because Cloudflare doesn't like their browser, IP, or local weather (because who the hell knows exactly why they're being blocked), and it's bad for businesses too: both competing CDNs that can't compete with CF's scale, and businesses that rely on CF but will be hit with a monopoly-sized price increase once Cloudflare's competition is extinct.
- z3ncyberpunk 2y ago
  It makes perfect sense when Joe is blocked for disobeying the totalitarian hivemind and loses access to his accounts.

by xethos 2y ago

dylan604 2y ago

This was my response as well. The number of people hosting websites that large numbers of people visit is much smaller than people of this forum would like to admit. The vast majority of web users don't visit Joe's self-hosted blog, they view Joe's content on the various social platforms. It doesn't make sense for Joe to host his own site.

IgorPartola 2y ago
Ok so if it doesn’t make sense for Joe to host his website because it’s just not interesting enough for people to visit then how is others using different CDNs than CloudFlare going to solve that?
- xethos 2y ago
  We (or I, at least) aren't asking Joe Blogman to host his own site (though if he does, I'll cheer them on just the same). We're asking other, bigger sites, the ones that large groups of people visit, to avoid Cloudflare. These tend to be the "infrastructure" websites; the ones that, if you can't access them, you have a harder time that day because you have an actual task you have to do - and the company behind the website that Cloudflare is blocking you from, has reduced other avenues of completing the task because "customers can use the website". It is in this way that Cloudflare is bad. It's bad for consumers being blocked because Cloudflare doesn't like their browser, IP, or local weather (because who the hell knows exactly why they're being blocked), and it's bad for businesses too: both competing CDNs that can't compete with CF's scale, and businesses that rely on CF but will be hit with a monopoly-sized price increase once Cloudflare's competition is extinct.
z3ncyberpunk 2y ago
It makes perfect sense when Joe is blocked for disobeying the totalitarian hivemind and loses access to his accounts.