[markisus]

If I were hosting a web page, I would want it to be able to reach as many people as possible. So in choosing between CDNs, I would choose the one that provides greater browser compatibility, all other things equal. So in principle, the incentives are there for Cloudflare to fix the issue. But the size of the incentive may be the problem. Not too many customers are complaining about these non-mainstream browsers.

[porty]

In that case you can turn off / not turn on the WAF feature(s) of Cloudflare - it's optional and configured by the webmaster.

[doctor_radium]

On one hand, I'm okay with that. If Cloudflare or some other self-appointed Internet cop blocks me from a site, I just go somewhere else, and I hope the site goes out of business as a result...which happens to businesses everyday for a variety of reasons. But given Cloudflare's sheer size, having so many businesses crank the shields to maximum actually affects using the web, and that's where I draw the line.

[Aachen]

> If I were hosting a web page, I would want it to be able to reach as many people as possible. So in choosing between CDNs

I host many webpages and this is exactly it. Anyone is welcome to use the websites I host. There is no CDN, your TLS session terminates at the endpoint (end to end encryption). May be a bit slower for the pages having static assets if you're coming from outside of Europe, but the pages are light anyway (no 2 MB JavaScript blobs)