[autoexec]

Because they inserted themselves into almost everything we do online and basically managed to take control over it. Cloudflare should never have been allowed to man in the middle the entire internet, but now that they have they're the only man on earth with a dataset that size.

[majke]

(I'm ex CF) This is backwards. Nobody "allowed" anyting. CF serves a customers need. You can argue with the solution but you can't argue with the core problem. It's more healthy to start the conversation of _why_ CF services are valuable.

[dwedge]

> CF serves a customers need

CF serves something it convinced customers they need.

Static blogs hiding behind bot protection (in some cases blocking legit users from GrapheneOS because it's difficult to fingerprint them) because someone convinced them they'll be DDoSed by bots otherwise is a loss to the Internet.

A lot of self-hosters running CF tunnels because they don't know better also contributes.

> It's more healthy to start the conversation of _why_ CF services are valuable.

Begging the question. It's what TFA is about - telling people they need CF.

[majke]

> A lot of self-hosters running CF tunnels because they don't know better also contributes.

Are you saying CF documentation is better than Computer Science / Networking education resources? Why don't people know better? I thought the tunnels are mostly used to bypass NAT's.

> Static blogs hiding behind bot protection

I'm not sure what is the proportion of the static vs dynamic sites, but I would argue that for wordpress CF is adding real value.

[dwedge]

> I thought the tunnels are mostly used to bypass NAT's.

While not free, you can do with with TCP HAProxy streams on a cheap VPS. A lot of people using them to bypass NAT don't realise that Cloudflare decrypt the traffic on the way - that's what I meant about them not knowing better.

[NetOpWibby]

   A lot of self-hosters running CF tunnels because they don't know better also contributes.

If you know better, you should contribute.

[Groxx]

I think it counts as "allowed" regardless of utility. CF is so massively over-weight on the internet that it's impossible to trust them with anything because if they can be forced to do something by a hostile government (hint: they can be!) then they can get away with it invisibly and affect billions of people.

That is something that should not be allowed to exist. It's one of the reasons monopolies (or even majority-opolies) are bad. It's a weapon hanging on the wall, waiting to be used.

[epistasis]

Then I think the real question is why haven't any serious competitors emerged that can handle the essential services that Cloudflare provides?

Are there network effects like what happens with Microsoft in the business computing space? With Microsoft, I'm also aware of a great amount of anti-competitive behavior, and though I haven't seen that from Cloudflare personally and haven't heard accusations of it, I also haven't paid attention.

When I learned econ 101 in high school there was a concept of a "natural monopoly" like an electricity utility, a concept that was probably mostly post-hoc rationalization of the regulatory structures that were chosen a century ago, but it at least was a coherent narrative. I can't see any coherent narrative about Cloudflare's services being a natural monopoly. So I'm left wondering if they are just way better at what they do than anybody else, and perhaps the space isn't big enough to drive a competitor to enter it?

I hope somebody on HN has a much better explanation of this than I do.

[Groxx]

I suspect a big part of it is that CF is running other businesses on the side, and offering basic features at a loss - they've artificially depressed the price of the service so it's hard to compete with them on only that service.

Everyone using the free service likes that, of course, but honestly I wish we'd make it illegal to do. It's heavily used as a way to steal small markets simply by being successful in a different large one.

[autoexec]

> Everyone using the free service likes that, of course, but honestly I wish we'd make it illegal to do.

I can see the benefit, but if you made free services illegal companies like google would just offer gmail for a penny.

You'd could go farther and say that no one should be allowed to provide a good or service for less than it costs them to provide it. That still has problems though. For example, Netflix sends servers to ISPs to set up on their network so that segments of that ISP's customers are pulling data from one of those boxes distributing the load. ISPs are happy to do it because it means fewer customers call them to complain about slow speeds/buffering issues with netflix. If netflix wanted to start selling CDN services to others, having all those boxes at every major ISP in the nation means the cost to deliver that service will be much lower for netflix than it would for some new start up. You can't really make it illegal to offer a service at a price lower than it would cost the poorest and least efficient/capable would-be competitor though.

We'd also risk losing a lot. Everyone would be forced to pay youtube some amount proportionate to what it costs for youtube to exist. There are also extremely expensive to run services like the internet archive which would be bad to price people out of

[Groxx]

There are plenty of ways to mitigate that "losing a lot" (like government subsidies: run X, get paid $Y per Z -> easier access for both users and providers. we already do this for a lot of research and tons of industry, it's not some utopian dream), and since a lot of the free internet stuff we have now is ad-supported and addiction-oriented... I'm not convinced that'd be bad to lose. The adtech business causes horrific damage, and is consistently used as a weapon against people (ICE buying info commercially to get around laws that would normally block their access, for example). Not everything has to be allowed to exist.

For Internet Archive: IA is a non-profit that currently runs fine on donations, not ads, and in a healthier environment they'd get subsidies because they serve a clear public benefit, one which the government also relies on fairly frequently. They're a wildly different category of business than Cloudflare, both obviously and legally, and I think they'd be fine. And we'd be significantly better off if they had competition, because that'd serve as a distributed, duplicated backup.

I'm not claiming it'd be trivial, or perfect. I'm claiming it'd be worth the effort.

[trumpdong]

Cloudflare doesn't offer any essential services. Cloudflare offers snake oil to cure your gut of snakes they've told you are in your gut.

[sophrosyne42]

Seems more of a moral hazard of government intervention than of ventures whose economies of scale demand large market cap to most economically serve customer needs.

[Groxx]

"Most economically" can be bent to nearly any purpose, there's almost always a cost-benefit to owning more of what you do, or externalizing costs onto others. It's not enough of a reason, and it's why laws restricting private behavior to serve the greater public exist.

Which is very nearly the only reason to have governments: forcing restrictions that lead to better results in aggregate.

(malicious control is another reason, but you kinda can't argue public benefit there)

[sophrosyne42]

"Most economically" means to satisfy the desires of the buyers without impairing the satisfaction considered more important. It has public benefit built in.

[layer8]

Regulation could conceivably disallow a single company to control such a significant portion of internet traffic. The parent can be interpreted as lamenting the absence of such regulation.

[stickfigure]

The only thing more annoying than people chanting "regulation is bad" is people chanting "regulation is good".

What regulation? Be specific.

CloudFlare provides significant utility to me. I chose to use them. Explain why you think someone else needs to butt into this relationship.

[layer8]

I wasn't advocating regulation. I was arguing against the claim that "nobody allowed anything". The absence of regulation is allowing things.

[autoexec]

It's certainly a huge risk when one company's outage can take down so much of internet. Decentralization and the ability to route around damage was a core feature of the internet. The more we depend on the internet, the less acceptable that loss becomes.

[autoexec]

cloudflare (and CDNs more generally) certainly started out as an own goal. Warnings were ignored and most people did the easy thing instead of the right thing.

[tmpz22]

The fent dealer just serves the customers needs too

[bluefirebrand]

CF's current position in the internet is way larger than "serves a customer's need"

[thejazzman]

CF's customer is the website that elected to put CF in-between you and them

[EnergyAmy]

No, it's more healthy to start the conversation on why we allow corporations to do bad things with excuses like "just serving customer's needs"

[oytis]

I don't get it, what is bad about what they are doing? People need a CDN, they choose the one they find the best.

[thm]

The discussion revolves around the equivalent of taking nutrition advice from Coca-Cola's blog.

[simultsop]

escalated quickly

[trumpdong]

No, most people don't need a CDN. Cloudflare tells people they need a CDN, and hey, look, what a convenient free CDN right there.

[tokioyoyo]

They give/sell me the thing that I want, and it works for me. Multiply it by hundreds of thousands.

I’d blame the bad actors, rather than service providers that alleviate the problem.

[pbasista]

> they inserted themselves

I am unaware of such a capability of Cloudflare.

I believe it is the site administrators who have inserted Cloudflare in between their sites and their users.

Usually it is done for rational reasons of establishing a protection against bots. But what is less rational, in my opinion, is when everyone uses the same provider for that.

Because it indirectly turns Cloudflare into a monopoly. And monopolies often converge to a state when they start to abuse their position.