Cloudflare always go via sydney?

Forums › IT Pro and developers › Cloudflare always go via sydney?

1 | 2 | 3

ripdog

535 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2319547 18-Sep-2019 06:24

I have no idea why BarTender seems to be somewhat fixated with Cloudflare not kicking certain sites off their network, but peering is almost always a business decision. Unless there was some great PR win to be made with Spark making a moral stand against CF (which there isn't because nobody in the general public has heard of or understands CF), then the lack of peering will simply be some kind of business decision. I'm not sure what benefit Spark gains from slowing down a *huge* and growing part of the internet for their customers, but oh well. And if there was a moral stand to be made against CF, then surely the best option would be to block them entirely?

Of course that'd break a large portion of the internet, but at least the children would be protected from the evils of imageboards, rah rah.

I do think it's worth noting that there are an absurd number of small/medium sites routed via cloudflare these days. DDOS attacks are the background radiation of the web, and only CF offer free, unlimited DDOS protection. This protection provides the basis for the small web - the millions of small websites which still exist outside the great castles of Facebook and Google. It would be an incredible shame and tremendous loss if CF was to cease their free DDOS protection or attacked by ISPs/govts.

I would also like to point out the irony of attacking CF on... a CF protected site. Perhaps BarTender could learn the old saying "Bite not the hand that feeds". We all benefit from CF's open policies, and it is NOT their role to police content - nor is it that of ISPs.

Lenovo

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: Find your next Lenovo laptop, desktop, workstation or tablet now.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
74173 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2319580 18-Sep-2019 08:42

ripdog:

I would also like to point out the irony of attacking CF on... a CF protected site. Perhaps BarTender could learn the old saying "Bite not the hand that feeds". We all benefit from CF's open policies, and it is NOT their role to police content - nor is it that of ISPs.

BarTender knows well how we use CF and why. I also know the situation around his strong opinion. BarTender is not worried about the service in itself but the lack (or the mismanagement) of a complaints process that protects the individuals on the weaker side of the equation - the ones laying complaints against sites openly hosting - and incentivising - hate speech.

Believe me, I went through an exercise of looking at other providers. Some have robust complaints frameworks - or even policies that wouldn't accept some content to being with - while others have policies weaker than CF's own.

At the end we remain on CF because the service is what we need, at the price we can pay.

On the other hand I disagree the CHC events are the drivers behind Spark's decision to not peer with CF. This is something that's been going on for years.

This will be my last comment on this topic - in the future, please refer to this post.

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

BarTender

3420 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2319634 18-Sep-2019 10:32

ripdog:

I would also like to point out the irony of attacking CF on... a CF protected site. Perhaps BarTender could learn the old saying "Bite not the hand that feeds". We all benefit from CF's open policies, and it is NOT their role to police content - nor is it that of ISPs.

So a few points to consider:

- Why do all other DDoS companies have an Acceptable Use Policy that they seem to enforce? The CF AUP is only a paragraph, every other provider includes statements about what they as a business don't consider acceptable such as Terrorism/revenge p.rn/promotion of hate etc and why is there nothing about that in the CF AUP?

- Why is it that the problem with the most vile sites seems to solely be on CF and no others?

- Why is it that CF puts all the vile sites onto smaller number of hosting servers rather than across all their infrastructure. Such as why isn't Geekzone, The warehosue and 4chan using the same hosts? Is it possible that is deliberate decision by CF?

- Why does the abuse process from CF require that your information is always sent to the hosting company and no investigation is done by CF? And there are no rules from CF around if the hosting company then publishes your private information on a public forum (which happened to me). The doxing of people on these sites has lead to at least two suicides.

- If de-platforming doesn't work why was 8chan was online for 5 years (with a similar story with DS) and now that CF kicked them off have they not returned as no other hosting company will provide them service?

- Do you think giving vile sites such as 4/8chan unfettered protection has helped or hindered society and increased or decreased or made no difference to the level of hate and disharmony we see in society today? And do you see it getting better or worse?

and

1 | 2 | 3