zlacker

>>tardis+(OP)
Very similar to this other one https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34235237

I just repost the same comment I put in the above thread

> The thing that scary me most is that his business get shut down without any notice period (at least the author not mentioning any previous communications from Cloudflare team about the issue).

> This is really a shitty thing from Cloudflare, you cannot shut down an already running business without any notice/grace period.

>>vb-844+r9
I disagree. The other one was a clear case of someone knowingly breaking the TOS (same non-HTML content but in that case they were hosting a service which almost exclusively returns non-HTML content). The OP even admitted in the comments that they knew very well they were breaking the TOS but wanted some notice.

I don’t really feel any sympathy for that poster. They knowingly broke the rules, they had to have known that CF could come and shut them down at any time, and they still went ahead and threw the pity party knowing that they are pretty much entirely in the wrong. It’s very much a “play dumb games, win dumb prizes”.

Would it be nice for CF to give a heads up? Sure. But I don’t think it’s required, and especially not in an egregious case like that one.

>>myname+Y11
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34642984 I wasn't breaking the ToS at least not 2.8 (non html content) - my point was that I can understand I'm heavy user of the Workers and built-in pricing may not be economically feasible for CF to serve me hence push to Enterprise plan - I get it, just wish it was communicated to me clearly and beforehand my site went down.

>>tardis+v41
Specifically was talking about the GP comment’s link to the other post, where they very explicitly and knowingly went against the non-HTML clause. They were running some sort of image SaaS product where the vast majority of their (non-Worker) usage was images.

I think that case is different than this one because it was very obvious that it was against the rules, to the point where even the OP of that post came in to say that yes, they knowingly violated the TOS but would have appreciated a heads up.

The comment I was referring to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34235749

Sorry for the confusion, I tried to separate using “this post” and “that post” but I’m sure I slipped up somewhere there.