[londons_explore]

Fraud rates of 'other' browsers are over double that of mainstream browsers.

Nearly every metric is worse - from spam comment removal rate to adspam rate to credit card chargebacks.

I can completely understand a web host deciding to block any browser that isn't a major one.

[stevesimmons]

None of that should matter if the services are only available to validated, logged in paying customers.

And then you decide on the basis of the customer whether to block, not the browser.

[londons_explore]

But it turns out a bot can look very much like a logged in paying customer, just they're paying with a stolen credit card and you'll only learn that in 2 months when the chargeback arrives...

[smaudet]

Still not a reason to block by browser, bots don't even use them...

At any rate, based on what I've read this is a false alarm anyways, it's annoying and stupid but UA banning is not browser detection. This is more ass-covering - another commenter mentioned too many layers of abstraction which is probably closer to the mark - something broke somewhere and a customer complained, they don't have the time nor inclination, or perhaps even ability, to fix their issue, so they do the 'we don't know what's wrong, halp' thing, versus making a more robust site.

Which fits my impression of their site, shoddy service with mediocre hosting services. Superbowl/pornstar marketing though, so everyone has heard of them, in comparison to aws (you have heard you can host godaddy even if you think Amazon is just a place to buy shoes, and Amazon is both bigger and better)