zlacker

[parent] [thread] 9 comments
1. myname+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-02-03 20:05:40
How, exactly, is the TOS and pages mentioning this limitation not clear?

I mean, it was clear enough for the other OP to know they went against it. They didn’t need to be told, they already knew their usage was against the TOS and just didn’t like that Cloudflare decided to enforce the rule they very well knew they were already breaking. They even said it themselves.

I already even said that is why I don’t agree the issues are in any way the same, but you opted to ignore that and continue down your diatribe of “it’s always the company’s fault”.

> Throwing your hands up, and blaming confusion on the user is a way to rightfully cause users to hate you, and rightfully cause you a large amount of monetary damage as people decide that your company is not worth the risk.

TIL that users are just allowed to do whatever they want with no repercussions because it’s too difficult to read the agreement they signed. The one that tells them what they’re explicitly not allowed to do. But no, definitely the company’s fault that a customer was taking advantage of them and their services. Totally.

> Cloudflare executives are posting in this thread.

So? People post here all the time. “HackerNews support” is a trope at this point and says nothing but that executives want to do damage control. It says nothing about the TOS being clear on the issue.

replies(2): >>vb-844+qA >>stale2+tH
2. vb-844+qA[view] [source] 2023-02-03 23:22:44
>>myname+(OP)
> Just because you didn't know murder is illegal does not mean you can go kill random people and claim "oopsie, I didn't know, I wish you had warned me ahead of time".

It's a wrong comparison. I'm not saying that people that are abusing CF's services are not guilty.

> I mean, it was clear enough for the other OP to know they went against it.

The point is not about these specific cases(in the one I posted it's definitely user's fault, this one is more ambiguous) but how CF acts.

The automatic/human process inside CF that decided to "ban" doesn't know if users are aware or not. They just assume (as you) that's user's fault and proceed with the "ban". While, if I'm running a service for months or even years and no one complains, there are a lot of good reason to assume that I don't do anything wrong.

Imagine that you have a totally compliant service but, because of a bug in their detection mechanism, your service goes down, and it takes days or even weeks to clarify everything with them and bring it up again.

It's an insane "default".

I mean, for CF nothing changes if they give you an x days notice but for your business changes a lot and (as mentioned before) when you run 1/3 of internet it's not only about the TOS.

3. stale2+tH[view] [source] 2023-02-04 00:10:05
>>myname+(OP)
>
replies(1): >>myname+eK
◧◩
4. myname+eK[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-04 00:26:45
>>stale2+tH
> Something being "clear" only matters, in so far as it is understood. That is my definition of "clear". It is only clear if it is understood, no matter what, or how clear you think it is. It is defined as unclear, if it is not understood, commonly.

> I mean, it was clear enough for the other OP to know they went against it. They didn’t need to be told, they already knew their usage was against the TOS and just didn’t like that Cloudflare decided to enforce the rule they very well knew they were already breaking. They even said it themselves.

It's evidently clear. Did you even read the thread we’re talking about? Like even remotely? Or are you continuing on the same diatribe regardless what was clearly already written?

> I am not saying I am right. I did break the TOS. They have the right to do what they did. It's just not nice and I don't like them anymore :)

This is not a person who was confused. Period.

replies(1): >>stale2+zQ
◧◩◪
5. stale2+zQ[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-04 01:19:04
>>myname+eK
>
replies(1): >>myname+vR
◧◩◪◨
6. myname+vR[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-04 01:26:15
>>stale2+zQ
Says who? You are not the arbiter of what is clear. The examples shown, you know, the ones we are actually discussing, show that it’s clear.

That you chose to discard them is on you. But that doesn’t mean they just magically don’t exist.

replies(1): >>stale2+uS
◧◩◪◨⬒
7. stale2+uS[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-04 01:34:00
>>myname+vR
.
replies(1): >>myname+OS
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
8. myname+OS[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-04 01:36:04
>>stale2+uS
Ignorance continues to be no defense but whatever you want to believe to help you sleep at night, bud.

Here’s a gold star, champ.

replies(1): >>stale2+1T
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
9. stale2+1T[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-04 01:38:46
>>myname+OS
"
replies(1): >>myname+sT
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
10. myname+sT[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-04 01:41:28
>>stale2+1T
The issue has been fixed; if you were to actually read the comments you may have discovered that. But you’ve made it clear that’s not something you partake in.

Once again, whatever you want to believe to help you sleep at night.

[go to top]