[neom]

Critical infrastructure is critical so it belongs in the hands of a few. You can make it reliant on nobody so I have to trust nobody, or you can put it in the hands of a trusted few who I can research and understand. Michelle, Matthew and John GC have done such a good job of building trust we've rewarded them to the tune of billions of dollars. I understand your perspective, I just wanted to share there are other people on the other-side who don't find it shocking and appreciate how it is.

[wongarsu]

Counterargument: centralization leads to all critical infrastructure failing at once, which is far worse than single pieces of infrastructure experiencing intermittent failures at different uncorrelated points in time.

[electroly]

Counter-counter-argument: users forgive you when all their other apps are down, too. Countless cloud outages have proven there is safety in numbers. If your app is the only one down, you're having a very bad day. If everyone's app is down, nobody seems to actually care that much. Not enough to start making my outages my own problem instead of just waiting for someone else to fix it, at least.

[neom]

Yes, I want to also be clear my point was philosophical not technical and i'm not trying to start a flamewar. I don't know there is a "right answer" here - I just have one perspective, I don't see the others as being less valid in exploration. I've thought about your point a lot over the years (I helped build a large cloud provider from scratch) - you might be right I don't know but in my experience outages on less centralized systems tend to go on for longer and are harder to deal with if the surface area is too diffuse, there is probably a happy medium, but I still don't have a problem with cloudflare, they seem generally fine, we've known them a long ass time now. i am quite concerned however about when Matthew and Michelle move on, as I expect they will one day, who takes over... you have to have a lot of gaul to run cloudflare correctly.

[nullstyle]

"Critical infrastructure is critical so it belongs in the hands of a few."

Holy shit no. This is the sort of thing that gets kooky politicians randomly turning off the flouride in a city's water supply: https://alaskapublic.org/news/2021-12-15/anchorage-mayor-tur...

Things aren't as simple as you seem to think they are.

[neom]

I take your point and it's well presented. We could easily get into neo-liberalism here but It's too early on a Thursday morning for that so I'll just accept it's more nuanced and I hope you'll look for the nuance on my side also. :)

[nullstyle]

of course! :)

[radlad]

> Critical infrastructure is critical so it belongs in the hands of a few.

Well that's a non-sequitur.

[diggan]

> Critical infrastructure is critical so it belongs in the hands of a few.

Yeah, why even have ASNs, BGP and distributed network infrastructure when we could just have GooFlareZon host it all, with basically no drawbacks?

There is many good reasons why the internet is distributed and why that was the architecture that allowed it to go global. Going back from that would do no one any good except the ones who ends up the new owners.

[neom]

The internet is distributed control, yes. BOFH operating tables, as I said for me it's either no humans or humans I can audit. The DNSSEC Root KSK Ceremony is neat.