3 ms·

> Why not eg block Google Chrome? I think you're not faithfully trying to adopt their perspective here, even if you don't agree with it (just like me). They n

> Why not eg block Google Chrome? I think you're not faithfully trying to adopt their perspective here, even if you don't agree with it (just like me). They need (in their mind, again I don't agree) to block these sites somehow, as they see it as them "stealing" viewers, judges agree with this. Now, where can the block be done, and have the least amount of collateral? Cloudflare is not playing ball and turning of the streams, and they appear too quickly to go through court orders all the time. Banning a web browser obviously has a huge scope, so you're effectively left with blocking based IP, DNS or both/either. Considering they are breaking local laws, and judges feel like something should be done to stop that, the solution they arrived at, regardless of how shit it is, is probably the solution with the least collateral damage, even if it has quite a lot. Again, I don't agree with the decision, but I can also see from their perspective that they don't have a ton of choices, if we adopt the perspective that it should be stopped somehow.

pier25 6mo ago
> I think you're not faithfully trying to adopt their perspective here I think you're not seeing the bigger picture. Somehow La Liga (a private company) was able to convince the courts that it should be able to ban IPs almost in real-time without any oversight from the law. This is just insane in a modern democracy and only benefitted La Liga. Certainly not the population of Spain for whom the courts work for. Time has proven what anyone with two brain cells knew already. Blocking IPs was never going to do much to solve the issue. It's a wack-a-mole game. Cloudflare knew this and La Liga did too. > where can the block be done, and have the least amount of collateral? Blocking one of the biggest providers of internet infra was anything but "the least amount of collateral". Plenty of companies and services depend on Cloudflare.
- embedding-shape 6mo ago
  > Blocking IPs was never going to do much to solve the issue. It's a wack-a-mole game. But that in their mind is "solving the issue, at that time". Why do you think they want to expand it to other sports now, because "doesn't do anything" or because they actually see some effect from it? > Blocking one of the biggest providers of internet infra was anything but "the least amount of collateral". Plenty of companies and services depend on Cloudflare. Ok, so given their perspective is "something must be done" and Cloudflare are not blocking the users after requests, what is the alternative here? Turning off the entire internet connection for individual users? Turning off all the internet during games? I really don't know what alternative could be possible, that still satisfies their "something must be done". Again, I agree that this is an massive overstep, wildly miscalculated and I'm personally affected by this every time a football is on, I don't like it either.
  - roughly 6mo ago
    If there’s no reasonable alternative that satisfies their “something must be done” without creating massive negative consequences for the rest of society, then in fact something must not be done, and the large corporate entity will either have to settle for not making as much money as they think they’re entitled to or figure out some other way to recapture those viewers.
    - embedding-shape 6mo ago
      > massive negative consequences for the rest of society What are these "massive negative consequences" you're talking about? Some IPs blocks from Cloudflare are blocked for ~90 minutes, some times a week. As repeated so many times, I agree it sucks, but it's not "internet is unavailable most of the week", it's "some websites are unavailable for some hours of the week". And also again, if you don't see "something must be done" you're not able to adopt their perspective, so of course you'll never understand this, because you're seemingly refusing to. Fine, you do what you want, but don't mislead others what the real situation is, just because you're unable to grasp it from the other side.
      - pier25 6mo ago
        > it's not "internet is unavailable most of the week", it's "some websites are unavailable for some hours of the week" A good chunk of the internet goes through Cloudflare. Something like 40% of the top 1000 websites use it. Services depend on it (CI etc). SaaS companies are shut down. Businesses can't sell. Etc. It's a disaster. It's amazing how oblivious you seem to the gravity of the situation.
        embedding-shape 6mo ago
        > It's amazing how oblivious you seem to the gravity of the situation. I'm not, I don't know how I could, as every single time the blocks happen, I'm personally affected by it, since I live in Spain. But, seemingly we have wildly different experiences. None of the companies I buy stuff from our down during those periods, it's not a disaster as far as I notice it, but clearly you do, so now I'm curious what exactly you're doing during these 2-3 hours a week when this happen that makes you so affected by this, while I'm not? I'm genuinely curious, not a "gotcha" or anything, I just want to understand your situation better, since our experience differs so much. Which region are you in and with what ISP?

pier25 6mo ago

> I think you're not faithfully trying to adopt their perspective here I think you're not seeing the bigger picture. Somehow La Liga (a private company) was able to convince the courts that it should be able to ban IPs almost in real-time without any oversight from the law. This is just insane in a modern democracy and only benefitted La Liga. Certainly not the population of Spain for whom the courts work for. Time has proven what anyone with two brain cells knew already. Blocking IPs was never going to do much to solve the issue. It's a wack-a-mole game. Cloudflare knew this and La Liga did too. > where can the block be done, and have the least amount of collateral? Blocking one of the biggest providers of internet infra was anything but "the least amount of collateral". Plenty of companies and services depend on Cloudflare.

embedding-shape 6mo ago
> Blocking IPs was never going to do much to solve the issue. It's a wack-a-mole game. But that in their mind is "solving the issue, at that time". Why do you think they want to expand it to other sports now, because "doesn't do anything" or because they actually see some effect from it? > Blocking one of the biggest providers of internet infra was anything but "the least amount of collateral". Plenty of companies and services depend on Cloudflare. Ok, so given their perspective is "something must be done" and Cloudflare are not blocking the users after requests, what is the alternative here? Turning off the entire internet connection for individual users? Turning off all the internet during games? I really don't know what alternative could be possible, that still satisfies their "something must be done". Again, I agree that this is an massive overstep, wildly miscalculated and I'm personally affected by this every time a football is on, I don't like it either.
- roughly 6mo ago
  If there’s no reasonable alternative that satisfies their “something must be done” without creating massive negative consequences for the rest of society, then in fact something must not be done, and the large corporate entity will either have to settle for not making as much money as they think they’re entitled to or figure out some other way to recapture those viewers.
  - embedding-shape 6mo ago
    > massive negative consequences for the rest of society What are these "massive negative consequences" you're talking about? Some IPs blocks from Cloudflare are blocked for ~90 minutes, some times a week. As repeated so many times, I agree it sucks, but it's not "internet is unavailable most of the week", it's "some websites are unavailable for some hours of the week". And also again, if you don't see "something must be done" you're not able to adopt their perspective, so of course you'll never understand this, because you're seemingly refusing to. Fine, you do what you want, but don't mislead others what the real situation is, just because you're unable to grasp it from the other side.
    - pier25 6mo ago
      > it's not "internet is unavailable most of the week", it's "some websites are unavailable for some hours of the week" A good chunk of the internet goes through Cloudflare. Something like 40% of the top 1000 websites use it. Services depend on it (CI etc). SaaS companies are shut down. Businesses can't sell. Etc. It's a disaster. It's amazing how oblivious you seem to the gravity of the situation.
      - embedding-shape 6mo ago
        > It's amazing how oblivious you seem to the gravity of the situation. I'm not, I don't know how I could, as every single time the blocks happen, I'm personally affected by it, since I live in Spain. But, seemingly we have wildly different experiences. None of the companies I buy stuff from our down during those periods, it's not a disaster as far as I notice it, but clearly you do, so now I'm curious what exactly you're doing during these 2-3 hours a week when this happen that makes you so affected by this, while I'm not? I'm genuinely curious, not a "gotcha" or anything, I just want to understand your situation better, since our experience differs so much. Which region are you in and with what ISP?