Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

boston.conman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 516 posts

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#161

Post by lxgr »

misiek08 wrote: post #117
throwawayffffas wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not letting you unsubscribe and blocking your IP are very different things. There are some that do not provide services in most countries but Netflix, Disney, paramount are pretty much global operations. HBO and peacock might not be available in Europe but I am guessing they are in Canada.

In Europe we have all of them, with only few movies unavailable or additionally paid occasionally. Netflix, Disney, HBO, Prime and others work fine. Funny to see how narrow perspective some people have…

Obligatory side note of "Europe is not a country".

In several European countries, there is no HBO since Sky has some kind of exclusive contract for their content there, and that's where I was accordingly unable to unsubscribe from an US HBO plan.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#163

Post by themafia »

bob1029 wrote: post #132

I think a lot of really smart people are letting themselves get taken for a ride by the web scraping thing. Unless the bot activity is legitimately hammering your site and causing issues (not saying this isn't happening in some cases), then this mostly amounts to an ideological game of capture the flag. The difference being that you'll never find their flag. The only thing you win by playing is lost time. The best wa…

The way I get a fast web product is to pay a premium for data. So, no, it's not "lost time" by banning these entities, it's actual saved costs on my bandwidth and compute bills.

The bonus is my actual customers get the same benefits and don't notice any material loss from my content _not_ being scraped. How you see this as me being secretly taken advantage of is completely beyond me.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#164

Post by sylware »

grandinj wrote: post #60
sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some weird ones you'd never think of that originate an inordinate amount of bad traffic. Like Seychelles. A tiny little island nation in the middle of the ocean inhabited by... bots apparently? Cyprus is another one. Re: China, their cloud services seem to stretch to Singapore and beyond. I had to blacklist all of Alibaba Cloud and Tencent and the ASNs stretched well beyond PRC borders.

There is a Chinese player that has taken effective control of various internet-related entities in the Seychelles. Various ongoing court-cases currently. So the seychelles traffic is likely really disguised chinese traffic.

I forgot about that: all the nice game binaries from them running directly on nearly all systems...

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#166

Post by lxgr »

ordu wrote: post #81
lxgr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and I’m arguing that that’s due to companies engaging in silly pseudo-security. I wish that would stop.

It is not silly pseudo-security, it is economics. Ban Chinese, lower your costs while not losing any revenue. It is capitalism working as intended.

Not sure I'd call dumping externalities on a minority of your customer base without recourse "capitalism working as intended".

Capitalism is a means to an end, and allowable business practices are a two-way street between corporations and consumers, mediated by regulatory bodies and consumer protection agencies, at least in most functioning democracies.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#167

Post by aspenmayer »

McDyver wrote: post #39
plaguna wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same people who care about “master” and “main” for hit branches.

Would those people care about the word "hit"?

I think it’s a typo, as I think the context is “git branches” unless you think that “hit branches” makes sense in context. I don’t think it does.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#168

Post by latexr »

rglullis wrote: post #121

[flagged]

> All of the "blockchain is only for drug dealing and scams" people will sooner or later realize that it is the exact type of scenarios that makes it imperative to keep developing trustless systems.

This is like saying “All the “sugar-sweetened beverages are bad for you” people will sooner or later realize it is imperative to drink liquids”. It is perfectly congruent to believe trustless systems are important and that the way the blockchain works is more harmful than positive.

Additionally, the claim is that cryptocurrencies are used like that. Blockchains by themselves have a different set of issues and criticisms.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#170

Post by closewith »

lxgr wrote: post #153
closewith wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chargebacks aren't the panacea you're used to outside the US, so that's a non-issue.

Only if your bank isn't competent in using them. Visa/Mastercard chargeback rules largely apply worldwide (with some regional exceptions, but much less than many banks would make you believe).

No, outside the US, both Visa and Mastercard regularly side with the retailer/supplier. If you process a chargeback simply because a UK company blocks your IP, you will be denied.
Post reply on HN