Comment by IYasha
3 years ago
There are many less inhumane ways of treating clients than CF does. Just because you needed them to protect your host doesn't justify their abuse of power.
3 years ago
There are many less inhumane ways of treating clients than CF does. Just because you needed them to protect your host doesn't justify their abuse of power.
This isn't true, though. Or at least it's not true if you want a free, set-it-and-forget-it solution, which people do for hobbies and side projects. You might want to take a look at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21719793, which is a story about somebody who started out trying to avoid CloudFlare and eventually had to surrender because there was no other way to keep his site online against attackers.
> There are many less inhumane ways of treating clients than CF does.
>> This isn't true, though.
What??
Also, you are probably missing my point: it's not like sites don't need protection, it's the unfriendliness of how CF implements it.
Well how would you do it, then? It's not like CF hasn't thought about this a lot. Spam deterrence has been a problem since the start of the internet. It's clearly not an easy problem to solve.