| |
| ▲ | sph 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You are correct, but Cloudflare is still a cancer on the Internet. | | |
| ▲ | petcat 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Rampant bot traffic and scrapers are the real cancer. Until that goes away everyone is going to need cloudflare or some other bot firewall service. | | |
| ▲ | adrian_b 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Perhaps that is true, but the Cloudflare anti-bot protection is too stupid and annoying. They should have used a cookie or something else that does not require asking me every few minutes to prove once more that I am not a bot. There was a time when Cloudflare had become less intrusive, but for the last months it has begun again to intervene almost each time when opening some pages. There is no doubt that anti-bot protection can be implemented in a better way than Cloudflare does, but presumably the alternatives would consume more resources on their servers, so probably they choose whatever minimizes their costs, regardless if that ensures maximum discomfort for Internet users. | | |
| ▲ | post-it 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You're getting frequent verification requests because you're behaving like a bot. Are you modifying your user agent string or using a VPN? | | |
| ▲ | encom 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Who knows what upsets ClownFlare? I'm using Vivaldi on Linux on IPv6 in Denmark with every uBlock filter enabled and Cookie Auto-delete. That seems to confuse and anger CloudFlare and I get CAPTCHA tarpitted constantly. | | |
| ▲ | post-it 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > They should have used a cookie or something else that does not require asking me every few minutes to prove once more that I am not a bot. > every uBlock filter enabled and Cookie Auto-delete Hmm | |
| ▲ | bethekidyouwant 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So you know why. | | |
| ▲ | encom 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No, it could be any, or other, totally normal and reasonable factors. Or maybe I posted too much Cloudflare hate on HN and they singled me out. They're in the walls! NO CARRIER
+CREG: 0,0
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Those are easy enough to dissuade with readily available PoW solutions. People use CF & co. out of convenience, the exact same reason that most websites load resources from at least half a dozen third parties instead of self hosting. | |
| ▲ | Duwensatzaj 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It won’t. Some people are perfectly happy to destroy and destroy as long as they get some small portion as profit for themselves. | | |
| ▲ | sph 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That, ironically, includes Cloudflare. Without rampant bots making the internet worse for everybody, they wouldn't have as much work. And their portion of profit is anything but small. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I know this is an unpopular opinion among freedom maximalists, but: It’s precisely because CloudFlare isn’t responding like other CDNs to reasonable demands to cut off pirate origin sites that this mess exists. If they reacted quickly to remove configurations that are obviously facilitating copyright infringement, Spain wouldn’t resort to full scale ASN blocking. How do we know it’s CloudFlare? Because other CDNs like CloudFront, Akamai, Fastly, etc. respond to takedown demands and aren’t being blocked. (Those also cost money and require customer identification.) In an escalating war between the state and a corporation, the state will always prevail if they have the public’s backing. In Spain it’s clear that most people are happy to watch the match through legitimate channels even at the cost of blocking CloudFlare. | | |
| ▲ | hiccuphippo a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Sounds like the solution is for legitimate services to move away from Cloudflare. They contribute to the single point of failure by remaining their customers. | |
| ▲ | FireBeyond 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It’s precisely because CloudFlare isn’t responding like other CDNs to reasonable demands to cut off pirate origin sites that this mess exists. If they reacted quickly to remove configurations that are obviously facilitating copyright infringement, Spain wouldn’t resort to full scale ASN blocking. Apropos of anything else, CF is (reasonably) requiring a court order to remove offending material rather than just "well, company said so, so eh, just do as they say". La Liga complains that "oh, that's too slow for what we want" and just got a blanket ruling. I am not a fan of CF but your argument seems to be "CF should just roll over any time someone says "hey, delete this", because, obviously, everyone knows it's problematic, right? Right?". | | |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent [-] | | At least the DMCA in the U.S. has guardrails: not just anyone can send a takedown demand for everything. The requester has identify the works and declare under penalty of perjury that they are operating on the behalf of the owner. I imagine the equivalent EU law has similar requirements. CloudFlare uses legal chicanery to try to subvert the DMCA by claiming that because they’re not the origin server, they’re not subject to takedown demands. So far no court has told them to knock it off. I expect that day will eventually come. Every lawsuit against them to date has ended in a settlement because CloudFlare would rather pay up than get an unfavorable ruling on the books. CloudFlare has consistently treated loss of DMCA safe harbor protection as a material business risk; it’s been cited in every SEC filing from the 2019 IPO S-1 through the FY2025 10-K. | | |
| ▲ | willdr 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Nobody cares about the DMCA guardrails and they are never meaningfully enforced. Case in point, Anthropic DMCAing thousands of repositories that simply mentioned the word "claude". | | |
| ▲ | otterley a day ago | parent [-] | | Can you explain how your example supports your conclusion? I don't follow. |
| |
| ▲ | FireBeyond 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > At least the DMCA in the U.S. has guardrails: not just anyone can send a takedown demand for everything. The requester has identify the works and declare under penalty of perjury that they are operating on the behalf of the owner. You'd think so, but no. DMCA came into effect 28 years ago. All those decades, all those billions of takedowns, and you don't even need the fingers of one hand to count those who've been hit with perjury for a false takedown request, because the number is ... zero. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You might misunderstand what the law requires. The person making the complaint (demand) only has to declare under penalty of perjury that they represent the copyright holder. It does not require them, under penalty of perjury, to be correct about the underlying facts. See 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A): "(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following: ... "(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." In other words: someone issuing a notice of infringement relating to a Disney work must declare under penalty of perjury that they represent Disney. They don't have to declare under penalty of perjury that the work is in fact a Disney work, that the title is correct, that the use in question is not fair use, etc. This would explain why you're not seeing what you expect to see. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | hiccuphippo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Por que no los dos? Both blanked IP blocking and creating single points of failure are bad. | |
| ▲ | jbxntuehineoh 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | cf is failing to comply with Spanish law and as a result is being blocked in Spain |
|
