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

CloudFlare Watch

crimeflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: CloudFlare Watch

#31

Post by ashmud »

simonw wrote: post #6

As far as I can tell, this is by Daniel Brandt - previously of (now defunct) Google Watch and a bunch of other similar projects over the past 27+ years: http://www.leavegooglebehind.com/news/2012/02/google-critic-... (Based on the IRS letter posted on the site at http://www.crimeflare.com/gifs/irslet.gif which mentions "Public Information Research Inc", Brandt's organization) Update: confirmed, here's a page on the s…

Archived WP page:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060819151043/http://en.wikiped...

Partial postmortem edit log:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120204052201/http://en.wikiped...

Re: CloudFlare Watch

#32

Post by nitrogen »

jamespo wrote: post #24
heinrich5991 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to host a website if you don't have the support of CloudFlare or something similar, DoS attacks get you off hosting providers pretty quickly.

Not only are the alternatives to CF as you acknowledge but the number of sites hit by DOS attacks is low in the grand scheme of things.

The sites most in need of free speech protection probably also need more DoS protection (see DoSes of GitHub, for example).

Re: CloudFlare Watch

#33

Post by neilwillgettoit »

jgrahamc wrote: post #3
r3bl wrote: post #2

So... judging by the titles, what this website is suggesting is basically that free speech only applies if you agree with it, and since they don't agree with CloudFlare's decision to host everything, CloudFlare is bad? Honestly, the only thing I don't like about CloudFlare is their treatment of Tor users, which I don't see being mentioned anywhere in here.

We're making a lot of changes to how we handle Tor: https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/203306930

The move to the new reCAPTHA alone has made it a lot more usable for tor users.

Re: CloudFlare Watch

#35

Post by jlgaddis »

the-dude wrote: post #8

karma be damned: the 90s called and they want their website back!

Heh, I recently discovered that one of the first "websites" (and I use that term loosely) I ever made is still online, unmodified since 1997. I'm leaving it up and not touching it, just so I can celebrate its 20th birthday next year.

Re: CloudFlare Watch

#36

Post by LeifCarrotson »

mikeash wrote: post #17
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was drawing parallels; Cloudflare's open support for all websites is meritorious in the same way that freedom of speech and religion are meritorious. The temptation to regulate it has consequences which are analogous to limiting speech or religion. And no, it wouldn't dictate what you could say or believe, but it can help you say it. And if you need to say something that a powerful entity doesn't want said, they ca…

I don't get this at all. Why shouldn't CloudFlare make rules? So what if they get it wrong sometimes? There are plenty of alternatives. Not having any rules about what you'll host seems crazy. Free speech means that you can say whatever you want, but it does not mean that you can get others to help you say it. If they want to help then fine, but if they don't want to help you that's not a free speech issue.

They should consider what it would be like to live in an alternate universe where they were a consumer of their service. Not just being a customer themselves (that would be "give the customer everything, and pay him for the privilege"), but what would the rest of the world look like - would the company be in business, would there be negative externalities, etc.

For the reasons described, the thought experiment would (in my mind) suggest that there should be no speech restrictions, so that's the action they should take. Or you could describe it as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Re: CloudFlare Watch

#37

Post by Jordrok »

neilwillgettoit wrote: post #33
jgrahamc wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're making a lot of changes to how we handle Tor: https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/203306930

The move to the new reCAPTHA alone has made it a lot more usable for tor users.

No, it really hasn't. In most cases the new reCAPTCHAs actually take longer to solve than the old ones.

The old variant which makes you read street numbers is pretty quick and painless - type in 3 or 4 digits and you're done. With the new one, first you have to figure out what it wants you to identify (street signs? storefronts? lakes? mountains? food?), and then scan through a bunch of small, poorly focused images. Even if you get it right, many times it asks you to complete two or three separate challenges before it lets you through.

The only time the new version is more usable is when you run into the one old variant which is virtually unsolvable.[1] I actually wonder if some of these even have solutions. There have been countless times where it's rejected an answer I was sure was correct.

[1]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/---dJJOn8n9c/U1rZNDiWG1I/AAAAAAAAO...

Re: CloudFlare Watch

#38

Post by neilwillgettoit »

Jordrok wrote: post #37
neilwillgettoit wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The move to the new reCAPTHA alone has made it a lot more usable for tor users.

No, it really hasn't. In most cases the new reCAPTCHAs actually take longer to solve than the old ones. The old variant which makes you read street numbers is pretty quick and painless - type in 3 or 4 digits and you're done. With the new one, first you have to figure out what it wants you to identify (street signs? storefronts? lakes? mountains? food?), and then scan through a bunch of small, poorly focused images.…

Before the switch, 80% of the time I would get the unsolvable ones.
Post reply on HN