Technology

58303 readers

11 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1162

Cloudflare took down our website after trying to force us to pay $120000 within 24h (robindev.substack.com)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by starman to c/[email protected]

189 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Also, interesting comment I found on HackerNews (HN):

This post was definitely demoted by HN. It stayed in the first position for less than 5 minutes and, as it quickly gathered upvotes, it jumped straight into 24th and quickly fell off the first page as it got 200 or so more points in less than an hour.

I'm 80% confident HN tried to hide this link. It's the fastest downhill I've noticed on here, and I've been lurking and commenting for longer than 10 years.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 76 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

That Cloudflare were justifiably unhappy with the situation and wanted to take action is fine.

What's not fine is how they approached that problem.

In my opinion, the right thing for Cloudflare to do would have been to have an open and honest conversation and set clear expectations and dates.

Example:

"We have recently conducted a review of your account and found your usage pattern far exceeds the expected levels for your plan. This usage is not sustainable for us, and to continue to provide you with service we must move you to plan x at a cost of y.

If no agreement is reached by [date x] your service will be suspended on [date y]."

Clear deadlines and clear expectations. Doesn't that sound a lot better than giving someone the run-around, and then childishly pulling the plug when a competitor's name is mentioned?

[–] realbadat 56 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Considering the perspective of the poster, the misleading title, etc - are you actually sure they didn't?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Until Cloudflare responds to the post, it is IMO most beneficial to assume that the OP is being truthful and forthright. Doing so puts pressure on Cloudflare to either clarify or rectify the situation, whereas treating Cloudflare as though they are above suspicion accomplishes nothing.

After all, OP is very much the little guy here.

[–] realbadat 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Eh, I have a couple of issues with that. For one, I doubt CF would even respond to this. I could easily see them using this very writeup to sue, with all the admissions in it.

The bigger part though, is calling an online casino, whose own IT team (the writer) admitted they were knowingly abusing the plan they were on, the "little guy".

Are they small in comparison to Cloudflare? Absolutely, those schmucks have way too much control of the internet. Calling an online casino, whose own staff lied in the title, the little guy though... Doesn't sit right with me.

No, I'm not going to side with them, or with CF. I'm going to make my assumptions off what I know (two terrible companies, one of which has a liar writing an article where they pretend to not have admittted to their own lies about the subject), and I'm going to assume this:

Terrible casino used a plan they know they shouldn't have been on.
Terrible casino would have known what their traffic looked like for a long time.
Awful CF noticed, and said "Hey guys, wrong plan, talk to sales."
Terrible casino threatened to just leave awfuo CF.
Awful CF demands a year up front to ensure their costs are covered for previous abuse of the TOS.
Awful CF figures "screw it, they are stringing us along, just cut them off so we don't spend more money. TOS violation makes it easy."
Idiot IT from terrible online casino writes an article (stupidly) in which they admit to TOS violations, and pretends not to know about their own traffic from a resource they are relying on.

Seems pretty obvious to me. Barring further details, my assumptions are based on what I know, and I am perfectly happy sticking to that.

You do you.

load more comments (2 replies)