Yeah, there's something amazingly aggravating about CF telling you how much traffic is bots while showing that they can't distinguish you from a bot.
The fact that humans are seeing the traffic meant for bots is an unfortunate side-effect.
I personally welcome our future bot overlords (not only because being unwelcome might be unhealthy for me — why would I publicly disagree with an overlord or not want to be their friend?).
The fact is that CloudFlare distinguishes abuse (DDoS at IP layers 3 and 4) completely separately from bot detection. And it allows user controls to domain owners to allow some bots like Google Search Crawler.
So my statement stands: I want to see a citation of evidence that CloudFlare doesn’t have the ability to distinguish abuse.
Spoiler alert: many websites simply refuse to load at all (e.g. any google service, and lots of websites "protected" by CF). Captchas are everywhere: in many cases, you can't even complete simple GETs of blogs without donating free labor to CF.
And the most infuriating part, you get CF marketing messages right in your face while your browser is calculating hashcash (I guess?)... At this point I can recognize every single one of them: something about bots making up 40% of all internet traffic, something about their web scraper protection racket, something about small businesses (???), etc etc...
To be fair, Tor exit nodes have an awful reputation for sure. Nevertheless, I have a hard time forgiving how CF makes browsing the Internet hell for those who actually need Tor.