[yestoallthat]

DOS attacks being a bad thing is the whole reason the service exists, so to then group it with "things some people consider offensive" is just double think. If Cloud Flare didn't want to play internet cop in regards to DOS attacks, it would not exist. Since it does, it might as well say the same things with both sides of the mouth.

[eridius]

DDoS attack protection is just one of the services CloudFlare offers. Saying it's the whole reason the service exists suggests that you haven't actually looked at what they do.

[yestoallthat]

Change "the" reason to "one of the main reasons" (and going from the top left to bottom right, the second of their four main features), and notice how my point remains untouched?

[eridius]

Your point is still incorrect. CloudFlare is NOT playing "internet cop" for DOS. They're providing armor against it, but they're not "policing" it in any sense of the word.

[yestoallthat]

So DOS are "clearly bad" when it comes to providing "armour" against them, but a matter of taste, something a person could not possibly have an opinion on when it's a client of theirs?

> they're not "policing" it in any sense of the word.

I didn't say they do, I say it's double faced. Which it is.