[gruez]

>Everyone should only be allowed to use windows and a chrome browser variant with no ad blocking. Cloudflare 100% should be allowed to arbitrarily block anyone not using this set up because they are suspicious.

Seems like a slippery slope argument, but isn't reflective of reality. They still allow Tor browser to pass, of all things.

[ghjfrdghibt]

It wasn't meant to be taken seriously, I was using it to show the ridiculousness of blaming a user for the shortcomings of cloudflare.

But if you like: the arbitrarily blocked user if not at fault, cloudflare is at fault.

[gruez]

>I was using it to show the ridiculousness of blaming a user for the shortcomings of cloudflare.

That doesn't advance the conversation, or show that cloudflare should be always as fault, as you seem to imply. Even if people are pro privacy/freedom, I think most wouldn't give the individual (as opposed to the security provider) unlimited leeway, as seen in the bank example.

[johnklos]

Does "But if you're going out of your way to look suspicious" advance the conversation?

[gruez]

It advances the conversation because it refutes the argument that "It's not the users fault" brought up a few comments ago, by using the balaclavas in bank analogy.

[ghjfrdghibt]

It refutes nothing, it attempts to place the blame for cloudflare incompetence at the feet of a user who has done nothing wrong.

[gruez]

Replied in the other comment. In short: if someone wears a balaclava to a bank, would you say that person also "has done nothing wrong"?

[ghjfrdghibt]

[flagged]

[gruez]

[flagged]

[ghjfrdghibt]

[flagged]

[gruez]

[flagged]