There must be new niches ("value networks" as per that blog) that Cloudflare finds not worthwhile to serve. Usually they're at the lower end or the "nonconsumption" case, as described in the above blog post. That's one way to chip away at a bit of their customer base.
But it's best to just focus on customers and not imagine you're "competing with Cloudflare". Nothing to be gained by framing it that way.
This has got to be the dumbest attempt to legitimize Kiwifarms I've seen yet.
Yes? They also convinced web archives to delete their backups of Kiwifarms so we're not able to verify any claims.
I wasn't clear here, I meant user of internet in general. What I mean is that while your response may be justified, in reality archiving is a complex thing and forgetting/stuff disappearing is the default. Unless you actively fight against it (for example by archiving, but also personally like using spaced repetition for remembering stuff), you will forget, things will disappear. Lots of people are putting a lot of time and energy to try to remember more stuff, and some to try to forget/make people forget stuff. What may look like a decision by a big company is a constant war fought by people with vastly different opinions and values on what matters. If you consider something is worth preserving, you should try to contribute in your own way.
It's small, but I personally save web pages that I like, music that I like, movies that I like, so they can't just disappear on me.
And anyway, if Cloudflare MITMing the internet is bad, then isn’t them having one fewer client a good thing? (Even if said ex-client would rather still be a current client.)
Is Amazon trying to encourage people to use DNS-over-https with specious claims that your ISP is evil, but of course Cloudflare is not, without telling us that DoH takes control away from us so we can't block ads or otherwise decide what we want to allow or block?
Is Amazon trying to push everything through just a handful of IPs so that people can't block nefarious content without also blocking legitimate content?
If everyone were on-board with what Cloudflare wants, the Internet would be re-centralized around them, and because they don't "host" (which is a special kind of bullshit) and they don't "censor", bad actors will have free reign, so long as Cloudflare is making $$$.
You got me lost here. Cloudflare is making money by having everyone re-centralized around it? Where is the revenue from?
People asked the same about Facebook and Google. Monopolies can extract money from all sorts of things that appear to not necessarily directly generate revenue.
What happens when all the large players are using Cloudflare? They become a monopoly. Businesses small and large can't afford to not use them, because businesses don't want to give the appearance of being at a disadvantage. DDoS gangs will extort money from the holdouts, and it'll just become what businesses use.
Cloudflare already has a problem where they block large portions of the Internet and either make it so their access to Cloudflare hosted sites either has to go through CAPTCHAs or outright are blocked. If this starts happening to large ISPs, they'll be in a position where they, the ISPs, will be expected to solve problems of Cloudflare's creation.
I bet there'll be paid programs for ISPs where ISPs pay for the privilege to correspond with Cloudflare, agree to be "good" (Cloudflare's definition of good), and will suffer financially (because their traffic will be marginalized) if they don't agree to whatever Cloudflare wants.
We're seeing the pieces being assembled now.