|
|
|
|
|
|
by figassis
269 days ago
|
|
|
I think it's not just about proving a claim. The same argument that in a democracy, you should build checks and balances to avoid sleepwalking into a dictatorship, is valid for companies, especially internet companies. Look at Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and friends. Cloudflare plays nice because it wants to frictionlessly slide into a position where it can extract rent. Today, they are powerful but are not there yet. They're easy to migrate out of because their offerings, amazing as they are, are not irreplaceable so people cannot yet be made hostages. Mostly what happens is your customers feel like CF is holding you for ransom without you knowing it. When they start charging per packet and making you money, you will become as dependent on them as Apple developers are on Apple, and you'll find out how nice they are. I have the same fear of tailscale. They are so amazing I just want to move every piece of my infra to them, business and personal, my family's devices, everything. But over time I've gained this instinctive distrust for low friction from startups, especially when the effect (intended or not) is you forgetting how to manage your own tech. |
|
|
> ... build checks and balances to avoid sleepwalking into a dictatorship.
This resonates well with me. I don't personally know the checks and balances that need to exist so that Cloudflare, or any big influential company, refrains from becoming evil. I find CF relying on open protocols for interoperability with vendors a very positive sign. I don't ever see them (or any company) backtracking of supporting some open standard once they already have support for it. I'm not aware of them having "custom" solutions that also don't have a spec for them. For example, they are absolutely best suited for the pay-per-[ai]crawl business model and if they wanted they could have easily taken advantage of their position. Instead they are relying on open standards and contributing to them. Paint me naive but this gives me a good deal of confidence of the short and medium term.
But I confess that I don't follow the company/market closely enough to know if that is enough or more is needed. More check and balances always seems good but I have no creativity in this regard. Perhaps that was one of my criticisms with the author's post - to collect all the bad press and identify the shortcomings but to stop short of digesting all those findings into a meaningful resolution.