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

Cloudflare took down our website

robindev.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 483 posts

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#361

Post by curtisblaine »

dangus wrote: post #348
Zak wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP isn't the only customer whose trust they lose by handling the issue in this way. It's fine if they want to terminate a relationship with an unprofitable or risky customer, but doing it with insufficient notice to make other arrangements is pretty extreme. In a case of blatant abuse, that might be reasonable, but that doesn't seem to be the case here the way OP tells it. I did quickly search the TOS for the word "g…

4. TERMINATION OF USE; DISCONTINUATION AND MODIFICATION OF THE WEBSITES AND ONLINE SERVICES We may at our sole discretion suspend or terminate your access to the Websites and/or Online Services at any time, with or without notice for any reason or no reason at all. We also reserve the right to modify or discontinue the Websites and/or Online Services at any time (including, without limitation, by limiting or disconti…

This still doesn't contain the word "gambling". Instead, it says that they can terminate your account at any moment, for any reason, no matter what your business type is, which is the opposite of "trust".

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#362

Post by luuurker »

ecjhdnc2025 wrote: post #336
luuurker wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you wrote is that "the CEO’s strategy was to turn up here and criticise Google for not deindexing quickly enough". The CEO replied to someone asking about the services they were working with and complained about Google taking longer than the others. Maybe we're reading his comment in a different way, but to me there's a big gap between what he did and having a "strategy" to blame Google. Cloudflare's CTO (jgraha…

[flagged]

What's the point of a strategy to criticise Google in that case? Are they criticising Google for no reason or to move some of the blame / direct people's anger at Google for keeping secrets online? In any case, you didn't use the word "blame" and it's my fault for interpreting your comment in this specific way.

I didn't see a "strategy" to criticise Google. There was ONE reply to someone asking about the "caches" they were working with. That reply listed the "caches" and complained about Google being too slow. That's it. I think we are stretching things a bit if we look at that comment and context, and conclude that the CEO's strategy was to criticise Google.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#363

Post by rrr_oh_man »

EasyMark wrote: post #270
j-bos wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under what contexts are you familiar with the term grok?

or don't feel like using an online dictionary when it's quicker than typing a question especially when you take feedback time into consideration. I just don't grok why anyone would do that.

I feel that you didn’t take the time to understand the question and keyboard warriored an irritated response instead.

Nonetheless, have a wonderful Sunday evening!

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#364

Post by dang »

nolverostae wrote: post #351
dang wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It set off the flamewar detector, got flagged by users, and got downweighted by a mod. The 'customer support of last resort' genre is common and not usually a good fit for HN [1]. If people feel this story is unusually relevant and interesting, I'm not sure I agree—long experience has taught us that one-sided articles like this nearly always leave out critical information—but I also don't mind yielding in an occasion…

I would be very happy to hear Cloudflare's actual side of this. (Or - it would have been great if they had given their side to us before getting into this mess). The only critical information from our side that I'm aware of is that we're a casino with multiple domains - which is why I put that right at the top. But most of the info should be relevant to any business interacting with CF. I do admit that I originally d…

Yes and I didn't mean you'd omitted critical information intentionally. It's in the nature of these incidents.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#365

Post by dang »

Aissen wrote: post #308
dang wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It set off the flamewar detector, got flagged by users, and got downweighted by a mod. The 'customer support of last resort' genre is common and not usually a good fit for HN [1]. If people feel this story is unusually relevant and interesting, I'm not sure I agree—long experience has taught us that one-sided articles like this nearly always leave out critical information—but I also don't mind yielding in an occasion…

> The 'customer support of last resort' genre is common and not usually a good fit for HN They're already off Cloudflare, I would see this story more as "Dealing with tech company X is a business risk" cautionary tale.

Those are variations of the same thing from an HN systems point of view. The problem is that there are way too many of these stories to be interesting and/or to all be on HN's front page, but they tend to attract upvotes anyway.

As I said above, we're happy to make exceptions for the occasional thread that is genuinely of interest, but sometimes the process for idenitfying those is "apply standard penalties -> generate howls of protest -> eventually find out about community pushback (e.g. in this case someone emailed hn@ycombinator.com) -> restore post".

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#366

Post by trane_project »

redman25 wrote: post #217
ecjhdnc2025 wrote: post #122

I will remind HNers: is Cloudflare not the company that leaked sensitive data through cache files that were indexed by at least Google, and when the tech community were up in arms about the massive leakage of sensitive data, the CEO’s strategy was to turn up here and criticise Google for not deindexing quickly enough? You get what you pay for.

That's one of the main reasons I'm leary about them. Such a big f-up is difficult to forget. It shows that they have a move fast and break things culture which for a company that is responsible for critical infrastructure feels wrong.

I interviewed there once and they asked me what I would do if a service broke after a deployment. I said the first step was to revert to the last known good version and then investigate. Color me surprised when that was not the answer they expected.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#367

Post by rrr_oh_man »

detaro wrote: post #167
rrr_oh_man wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question: Why did you use `grok` in that context?

... in what other contexts would you use the word "grok"?

> ... in what other contexts would you use the word "grok"?

My understanding: When complex knowledge is absorbed through deep immersion.

I was surprised to see to grok as a synonym for (? a possibly very superficial flavour of) to understand.

Would have loved to know why, from a linguistic perspective, GP used that word in this context.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#368

Post by rrr_oh_man »

juped wrote: post #324
selfmodruntime wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but if you‘re onboarded in a Sales Team you‘re at first getting small fry customers to get used to your Job. Cloudflare is massive and a complete no-brainer for 95% of companies. Not only that, she couldn‘t even land a single enterprise upcharge. Cold calls are hard, but upsells are much easier because companies are pretty much vendor locked with CF. If you can‘t land a single customer in 6 months under these…

source: you made it up based on never having been on either side of big or even medium organization vendor relationships

Every even mildly successful B2B sales org works like this, in my experience.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#369

Post by robocat »

cookiengineer wrote: post #196
greyface- wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should be classified as extortion. It meets the definition of a RICO "enterprise". The question is, will anyone bring it up for judicial review?

Look up "www.crimeflare.org/cfs.html" in the web archive on http port 82. This guy ran a DNS for years to prove it until he disappeared. Lots of nazi websites, ddoxing sites, crime networks, conspiracy sites, ransomware groups and russian misinformation campaigns that he uncovered. Honestly I don't see another way to gather the data necessary for this otherwise. You have to have the DNS data to be able to imply inten…

How crimeflare worked: https://www.marketingscoop.com/tech/piercing-the-cloudflare-...

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#370

Post by Dylan16807 »

itake wrote: post #330
Dylan16807 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're mad that cloudflare cut them without real warning. And they should be! Anyone can get on a big company's bad side, and if there aren't extremely important messages being withheld by the author this makes it scary for anyone to use cloudflare. If a custom IP is going to be mandatory, they need to say that and give a deadline, at the very least .

The IP-reputation damage is immediate. Cloudflare is choosing to pass the hard landing directly onto their customer instead of forcing their other customers to share the damage. As a CF customer, I am happy that Cf is preventing another business from damaging mine.

The ToS doesn't say anything against gambling sites. Even if there was IP reputation damage, it's not appropriate to cut them off so immediately. Especially when they're a long-term paying customer.
Post reply on HN