I disagree. The other one was a clear case of someone knowingly breaking the TOS (same non-HTML content but in that case they were hosting a service which almost exclusively returns non-HTML content). The OP even admitted in the comments that they knew very well they were breaking the TOS but wanted some notice.

I don’t really feel any sympathy for that poster. They knowingly broke the rules, they had to have known that CF could come and shut them down at any time, and they still went ahead and threw the pity party knowing that they are pretty much entirely in the wrong. It’s very much a “play dumb games, win dumb prizes”.

Would it be nice for CF to give a heads up? Sure. But I don’t think it’s required, and especially not in an egregious case like that one.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34642984 I wasn't breaking the ToS at least not 2.8 (non html content) - my point was that I can understand I'm heavy user of the Workers and built-in pricing may not be economically feasible for CF to serve me hence push to Enterprise plan - I get it, just wish it was communicated to me clearly and beforehand my site went down.

Specifically was talking about the GP comment’s link to the other post, where they very explicitly and knowingly went against the non-HTML clause. They were running some sort of image SaaS product where the vast majority of their (non-Worker) usage was images.

I think that case is different than this one because it was very obvious that it was against the rules, to the point where even the OP of that post came in to say that yes, they knowingly violated the TOS but would have appreciated a heads up.

The comment I was referring to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34235749

Sorry for the confusion, I tried to separate using “this post” and “that post” but I’m sure I slipped up somewhere there.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter.

They "tolerated" a non-compliant use of their service for so long time (maybe because in the past their only goal was to increase adoption?!?) and suddenly they decided to change strategy?! No problem, it's their choice, but adding an x days grace period should be the standard. It's really easy to do.

> Would it be nice for CF to give a heads up?

Well yes, it will be really welcome. Mostly for all other their user(1/3 of internet or something like this) that maybe doesn't even know there are not full-compliant to TOS and risk their business to be terminated suddenly.

> Mostly for all other their user(1/3 of internet or something like this) that maybe doesn't even know there are not full-compliant to TOS and risk their business to be terminated suddenly.

Warnings are nice, but it's ultimately the user's responsibility to read and understand the TOS, what they can and can't do. Ignorance is no defense. Just because you didn't know murder is illegal does not mean you can go kill random people and claim "oopsie, I didn't know, I wish you had warned me ahead of time".

> suddenly they decided to change strategy

They never changed strategy. It has always been explicitly against the TOS and explicitly mentioned as something you can't do in their documentation. Just because someone is below the threshold for Cloudflare's automated detection does not mean CF is allowing their use. Their use is still against the terms they agreed to, it's just not detected yet. If you are doing things you know are against the TOS, like that other poster, then you should very well know that your time is limited and your access can be yanked at any point in time.

> Warnings are nice, but it's ultimately the user's responsibility

It is actually ultimately the responsibility of the company, cloudflare, to clearly communicate their rules and ToS to the users. Because they are the multi-billion dollar business, and making things clear is their responsibility.

Throwing your hands up, and blaming confusion on the user is a way to rightfully cause users to hate you, and rightfully cause you a large amount of monetary damage as people decide that your company is not worth the risk.

Or even more, a user is within their right to cause large amount of monetary damages to the company, via viral social media outrages, such as this one. PR damage is real, and is a totally valid tactic, that a large company deserves, if they are making mistakes like this.

And it seemed like the damage caused by this post was very real. Cloudflare executives are posting in this thread.

So, actually, I would say that it is not just nice, but obligated to provide warnings, elsewise you get a situation like this, which is causing real damage to the company.

How, exactly, is the TOS and pages mentioning this limitation not clear?

I mean, it was clear enough for the other OP to know they went against it. They didn’t need to be told, they already knew their usage was against the TOS and just didn’t like that Cloudflare decided to enforce the rule they very well knew they were already breaking. They even said it themselves.

I already even said that is why I don’t agree the issues are in any way the same, but you opted to ignore that and continue down your diatribe of “it’s always the company’s fault”.

> Throwing your hands up, and blaming confusion on the user is a way to rightfully cause users to hate you, and rightfully cause you a large amount of monetary damage as people decide that your company is not worth the risk.

TIL that users are just allowed to do whatever they want with no repercussions because it’s too difficult to read the agreement they signed. The one that tells them what they’re explicitly not allowed to do. But no, definitely the company’s fault that a customer was taking advantage of them and their services. Totally.

> Cloudflare executives are posting in this thread.

So? People post here all the time. “HackerNews support” is a trope at this point and says nothing but that executives want to do damage control. It says nothing about the TOS being clear on the issue.

> Just because you didn't know murder is illegal does not mean you can go kill random people and claim "oopsie, I didn't know, I wish you had warned me ahead of time".

It's a wrong comparison. I'm not saying that people that are abusing CF's services are not guilty.

> I mean, it was clear enough for the other OP to know they went against it.

The point is not about these specific cases(in the one I posted it's definitely user's fault, this one is more ambiguous) but how CF acts.

The automatic/human process inside CF that decided to "ban" doesn't know if users are aware or not. They just assume (as you) that's user's fault and proceed with the "ban". While, if I'm running a service for months or even years and no one complains, there are a lot of good reason to assume that I don't do anything wrong.

Imagine that you have a totally compliant service but, because of a bug in their detection mechanism, your service goes down, and it takes days or even weeks to clarify everything with them and bring it up again.

It's an insane "default".

I mean, for CF nothing changes if they give you an x days notice but for your business changes a lot and (as mentioned before) when you run 1/3 of internet it's not only about the TOS.

> How, exactly, is the TOS and pages mentioning this limitation not clear?

Well you said the following "Warnings are nice, but it's ultimately the user's responsibility".

And I am responding to this shift of responsibility onto the user, and saying that the responsibility should be on the company to give warnings.

So it is not that warnings are nice. Instead it is that they should be an obligation, less consumers engage in their fully legal right to cause the company large amounts of monetary damages like this very same PR campaign that just happened.

> that users are just allowed to do whatever they want with no repercussions because it’s too difficult to read the agreement they signed

Well, if the company wants to avoid the very real and large amount of PR damage, that users are legally allowed to cause via PR campaigns like this, then yes the company would be obligated to make things not difficult to understand and read.

Thems the breaks.

> So? People post here all the time

So, what that means, is that it caused them enough damage that it got their attention.

If they didn't want that negative attention, then they should have made a better process from the beginning.

> but that executives want to do damage control

Yes! I am saying that they took PR damage, and thus have to do damage control.

If they didn't want that damage in the first place, they shouldn't have screwed up, by having things be unclear.

> It says nothing about the TOS being clear on the issue.

If people are misunderstanding the TOS, then it is unclear by definition.

Something being "clear" only matters, in so far as it is understood. That is my definition of "clear". It is only clear if it is understood, no matter what, or how clear you think it is. It is defined as unclear, if it is not understood, commonly.

> Something being "clear" only matters, in so far as it is understood. That is my definition of "clear". It is only clear if it is understood, no matter what, or how clear you think it is. It is defined as unclear, if it is not understood, commonly.

> I mean, it was clear enough for the other OP to know they went against it. They didn’t need to be told, they already knew their usage was against the TOS and just didn’t like that Cloudflare decided to enforce the rule they very well knew they were already breaking. They even said it themselves.

It's evidently clear. Did you even read the thread we’re talking about? Like even remotely? Or are you continuing on the same diatribe regardless what was clearly already written?

> I am not saying I am right. I did break the TOS. They have the right to do what they did. It's just not nice and I don't like them anymore :)

This is not a person who was confused. Period.

> It's evidently clear

Actually no.

The statement that you responded to was "Mostly for all other their user(1/3 of internet or something like this) that maybe doesn't even know there are not full-compliant to TOS and risk their business to be terminated suddenly.".

So, for those other users, that "maybe doesn't even know there are not full-compliant to TOS ", it is not clear.

You literally responded and quoted a hypothetical where it is not clear to the people who "maybe doesn't even know there are not full-compliant to TOS".

Says who? You are not the arbiter of what is clear. The examples shown, you know, the ones we are actually discussing, show that it’s clear.

That you chose to discard them is on you. But that doesn’t mean they just magically don’t exist.

Originally you responded to someone who said "(1/3 of internet or something like this) that maybe doesn't even know there are not full-compliant to TOS".

And your response was basically: "Ignorance is no defense".

It sounds like you are now backing off on that response, by instead attacking the premise of the statement.

So great, as long as you agree that "Ignorance is no defense" is actually a bad argument, and that actually it is on the company to make sure that people understand the TOS, then awesome, you agree with me.

Ignorance continues to be no defense but whatever you want to believe to help you sleep at night, bud.

Here’s a gold star, champ.

"

The issue has been fixed; if you were to actually read the comments you may have discovered that. But you’ve made it clear that’s not something you partake in.

Once again, whatever you want to believe to help you sleep at night.

No that guy was clearly wrong. OP is not and Cloudflare admitted it was a mistake https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-cloudflare-erroneously-throt...