zlacker

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.