4 ms·

It wasn't meant to be taken seriously, I was using it to show the ridiculousness of blaming a user for the shortcomings of cloudflare. But if you like: the arb

It wasn't meant to be taken seriously, I was using it to show the ridiculousness of blaming a user for the shortcomings of cloudflare. But if you like: the arbitrarily blocked user if not at fault, cloudflare is at fault.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gruez 2y ago
>I was using it to show the ridiculousness of blaming a user for the shortcomings of cloudflare. That doesn't advance the conversation, or show that cloudflare should be always as fault, as you seem to imply. Even if people are pro privacy/freedom, I think most wouldn't give the individual (as opposed to the security provider) unlimited leeway, as seen in the bank example.
- ghjfrdghibt 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - gruez 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ghjfrdghibt 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - gruez 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ghjfrdghibt 2y ago
        [flagged]
        gruez 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ghjfrdghibt 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 2y ago
        You broke the site guidelines repeatedly and badly in this thread, crossing into swipes and personal attacks. We have to ban accounts that post like this. Fortunately I don't see other cases of this in a quick runthrough of the account's posting history, so this should be easy to fix. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
        dang 2y ago
        You also broke the site guidelines in this thread. Please don't do this, regardless of how provocative other comments are or you feel they are. It just feeds a downward spiral. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- johnklos 2y ago
  Does "But if you're going out of your way to look suspicious" advance the conversation?
  - gruez 2y ago
    It advances the conversation because it refutes the argument that "It's not the users fault" brought up a few comments ago, by using the balaclavas in bank analogy.
    - ghjfrdghibt 2y ago
      It refutes nothing, it attempts to place the blame for cloudflare incompetence at the feet of a user who has done nothing wrong.
      - gruez 2y ago
        Replied in the other comment. In short: if someone wears a balaclava to a bank, would you say that person also "has done nothing wrong"?
        ghjfrdghibt 2y ago
        In short, just answering this question (which as stated in the other comment is not the issue), yes that person has t done anything wrong. There is no offence for wearing hats in banks.
        gruez 2y ago
        >There is no offence for wearing hats in banks. But banks aren't mandated to admit you either. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean a private establishment has to let you in. When it comes to denying entry, banks are relatively tame. Some establishments go beyond that, by denying entry unless you wear formal clothing, or presenting proof of identity.
        2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

gruez 2y ago

>I was using it to show the ridiculousness of blaming a user for the shortcomings of cloudflare. That doesn't advance the conversation, or show that cloudflare should be always as fault, as you seem to imply. Even if people are pro privacy/freedom, I think most wouldn't give the individual (as opposed to the security provider) unlimited leeway, as seen in the bank example.

ghjfrdghibt 2y ago
[flagged]
- gruez 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ghjfrdghibt 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - gruez 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - ghjfrdghibt 2y ago
        [flagged]
        gruez 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ghjfrdghibt 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 2y ago
        You broke the site guidelines repeatedly and badly in this thread, crossing into swipes and personal attacks. We have to ban accounts that post like this. Fortunately I don't see other cases of this in a quick runthrough of the account's posting history, so this should be easy to fix. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
        dang 2y ago
        You also broke the site guidelines in this thread. Please don't do this, regardless of how provocative other comments are or you feel they are. It just feeds a downward spiral. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
johnklos 2y ago
Does "But if you're going out of your way to look suspicious" advance the conversation?
- gruez 2y ago
  It advances the conversation because it refutes the argument that "It's not the users fault" brought up a few comments ago, by using the balaclavas in bank analogy.
  - ghjfrdghibt 2y ago
    It refutes nothing, it attempts to place the blame for cloudflare incompetence at the feet of a user who has done nothing wrong.
    - gruez 2y ago
      Replied in the other comment. In short: if someone wears a balaclava to a bank, would you say that person also "has done nothing wrong"?
      - ghjfrdghibt 2y ago
        In short, just answering this question (which as stated in the other comment is not the issue), yes that person has t done anything wrong. There is no offence for wearing hats in banks.
        gruez 2y ago
        >There is no offence for wearing hats in banks. But banks aren't mandated to admit you either. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean a private establishment has to let you in. When it comes to denying entry, banks are relatively tame. Some establishments go beyond that, by denying entry unless you wear formal clothing, or presenting proof of identity.
        2y ago