4 ms·

Hold up, one of those things is not like the other. Are we really blaming webmasters for 100x increases in costs from a huge wave of poorly written and maliciou

by hansvm 2y ago

Hold up, one of those things is not like the other. Are we really blaming webmasters for 100x increases in costs from a huge wave of poorly written and maliciously aggressive bots?

refulgentis 2y ago
> Are we really blaming... No, they're discussing increased fingerprinting / browser profiling recently and how it affects low-market-share browsers.
- hansvm 2y ago
  I saw that, but I'm still not sure how this fits in: > The enemy has been trying to spin it as "AI bots DDoSing" but one wonders how much of that was their own doing... I'm reading that as `enemy == fingerprinters`, `that == AI bots DDoSing`, and `their own == webmasters, hosting providers, and CDNs (i.e., the fingerprinters)`, which sounds pretty straightforwardly like the fingerprinters are responsible for the DDoSing they're receiving. That interpretation doesn't seem to match the rest of the post though. Do you happen to have a better one?
  - userbinator 2y ago
    "their own" = CloudFlare and/or those who have vested interests in closing up the Internet.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
jillyboel 2y ago
Your costs only went up 100x if you built your site poorly
- hansvm 2y ago
  I'll bite. How do you serve 100x the traffic without 100x the costs? It costs something like 1e-10 dollars to serve a recipe page with a few photos, for example. If you serve it 100x more times, how does that not scale up?
  - jillyboel 2y ago
    It might scale up but if you're anywhere near efficient you're way overprovisioned to begin with. The compute cost should be miniscule due to caching and bandwidth is cheap if you're not with one of the big clouds. As an example, according to dang HN runs on a single server and yet many websites that get posted to HN, and thus receive a fraction of the traffic, go down due to the load.
  - immibis 2y ago
    You got 100x the traffic if your traffic was near zero to begin with.

by hansvm 2y ago

Hold up, one of those things is not like the other. Are we really blaming webmasters for 100x increases in costs from a huge wave of poorly written and maliciously aggressive bots?

refulgentis 2y ago

> Are we really blaming... No, they're discussing increased fingerprinting / browser profiling recently and how it affects low-market-share browsers.

hansvm 2y ago
I saw that, but I'm still not sure how this fits in: > The enemy has been trying to spin it as "AI bots DDoSing" but one wonders how much of that was their own doing... I'm reading that as `enemy == fingerprinters`, `that == AI bots DDoSing`, and `their own == webmasters, hosting providers, and CDNs (i.e., the fingerprinters)`, which sounds pretty straightforwardly like the fingerprinters are responsible for the DDoSing they're receiving. That interpretation doesn't seem to match the rest of the post though. Do you happen to have a better one?
- userbinator 2y ago
  "their own" = CloudFlare and/or those who have vested interests in closing up the Internet.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

jillyboel 2y ago

Your costs only went up 100x if you built your site poorly

hansvm 2y ago
I'll bite. How do you serve 100x the traffic without 100x the costs? It costs something like 1e-10 dollars to serve a recipe page with a few photos, for example. If you serve it 100x more times, how does that not scale up?
- jillyboel 2y ago
  It might scale up but if you're anywhere near efficient you're way overprovisioned to begin with. The compute cost should be miniscule due to caching and bandwidth is cheap if you're not with one of the big clouds. As an example, according to dang HN runs on a single server and yet many websites that get posted to HN, and thus receive a fraction of the traffic, go down due to the load.
- immibis 2y ago
  You got 100x the traffic if your traffic was near zero to begin with.