[hecatoncheires]

If I were to use a VPN I'd stick with providers with proven track records of responding to court orders with empty logs, not the company with a CEO who capriciously kicks sites off their platform in response to online mobs.

I'd also feel very uneasy with continuing to feed the consolidation of the internet's traffic. Giving full control of your phone's routing to Cloudflare is sold as improving performance, but what it also does is give Cloudflare a lot of flexibility to pay less in transit costs and have a stronger position for peering agreements. Today that might be good in preventing ISP shakedowns, but very bad tomorrow if ISPs have to pay Cloudflare for the privilege of accessing the majority of the internet.

[sp332]

This is funny to me because CF's previous reputation was that they'd do business with anyone no matter how scummy. They're notorious for selling to both sides when criminal gangs were DDoS'ing each other. But they terminate service for a grand total of two sites and suddenly they're "capricious".

[makomk]

As far as I know, CloudFlare are still willing to provide service to all of the DDoS services that let anyone with a few dollars knock any company which doesn't buy from CloudFlare off the internet. They just don't have the excuse that they're doing it out of some kind of belief in free speech anymore.

[hecatoncheires]

Sorry but when it comes to VPN providers you have to have a pristine track record, not a couple whoopsies here and there. And I doubt that grand total is going to stay stuck at two when they're hiring Antifa supporters/members.