You’re literally visiting a service paid for by me. It’s open to the public, but it’s my domain and my server and I get to say “no thank you” to your visit if you don’t behave. You have no innate right to access the content I share.

Blocking misbehaving IP addresses isn’t new, and is another version of the same principle.

> but it’s my domain and my server and I get to say “no thank you” to your visit if you don’t behave [...] Blocking misbehaving IP addresses isn’t new

Absolutely, I agree that of course people are free to block whatever they want, misbehaving or not. Guess I'm just trying to figure out what sort of "collateral damage" people are OK with when putting up content on the public internet but want it to be selectively available.

> You have no innate right to access the content I share.

No, I guess that's true, I don't have any "rights" to do so. But I am gonna assume that if whatever you host is available without any authentication, protection or similar, you're fine with me viewing that. I'm not saying you should be fine with 1000s of requests per second, but since you made it public in the first place by sharing it, you kind of implicitly agreed for others to view it.

doing an HTTP GET to your server is my request to access some content your server serves. that's my right as a client. and it is your server's responsibility to determine whether or not to respond to my request. that's your server's right. said another way, "access" is the responsibility of the server, not the client.