What’s so painful about self hosting? I’ve been self hosting since before I hit puberty. If 12 year old me can run a httpd, anyone can.

And if you don’t want to self host, at least try to use services from organisations that aren’t hostile to the open web

I self-host lots of stuff. But yes it is more pain to host a WAF that can handle billions of request per minute. Even harder to do it for free like Cloudflare. And in the end the end result for the user is exactly the same if you use a self-hosted WAF or let someone else host it for you.

If you're handling billions of requests per second, you're not a self hoster. That's a commercial service with a dedicated team to handle traffic around the clock. Most ISPs probably don't even operate lines that big

To put that in perspective, even if they're sending empty TCP packets, "several billion" pps is 200 to 1800 gigabits of traffic, depending on what you mean by that. Add a cookieless HTTP payload and you're at many terabits per second. The average self hoster is more likely to get struck by lightning than encounter and need protection from this (even without considering the, probably modest, consequences of being offline a few hours if it does happen)

Edit: off by a factor of 60, whoops. Thanks to u/Gud for pointing that out. I stand by the conclusion though: less likely to occur than getting struck by lightning (or maybe it's around equally likely now? But somewhere in that ballpark) and the consequences of being down for a few hours are generally not catastrophic for self hosters

To be fair, he did say per minute :-)

Oh, whoops. Divide everything by 60, quick!

That does make it a bit less ludicrous even if I think the conclusion of my response still applies

If somebody decides they hate you, your site that could handle, say, 100,000 legitimate requests per day could suddenly get billions of illegitimate requests.

They could. Let me know when it happens

I have this argument every time self hosting comes up, and every time I wonder if someone will do it to me to make a point. Or if one of the like million other comments I post upsets someone or one of the many tools that I host. Yet to happen, idk

I've had my involvement with the computer underground.

A web site owner published something he really shouldn't have and got hacked. I wound up being a "person of interest" in the resulting FBI investigation because I was the weirdest person in the chat room for the site. I think it drove them crazy I was using Tor so they got somebody to try to entrap me into sharing CP but (1) I'm not interested and (2) know better than that.

That's definitely the most interesting response I've had to this question, thanks for that

Will have to give this a second thought but as a first one now that I read this: ...and would Cloudflare have helped against the FBI, or any foreign nation doing a request with Cloudflare against child porn? Surely not?! A different kind of opsec is surely more relevant there, so I don't know if it's really relevant to "normal", legal self hosting (as opposed to criminal, much less that level of unethical+criminal) communities or if there's an aspect I'm missing here

Not everybody wants to manage some commercial grade packet filter that can handle some DDoSing script kiddie, it’s a strong argument.

But another argument against using the easiest choice, the near monopoly, is that we need a diverse, thriving ecosystem.

We don’t want to end up in a situation where suddenly Cloudflare gets to dictate what is allowed on the web.

We have already lost email to the tech giants, try running your own mail sometime. The technical aspect is easy, the problem is you will end up in so many spam folders it’s disgusting.

What we need are better decentralized protocols.

Please do try running your own mail some time. It's not nearly as hard as doomers would have you think. And if you only receive, you don't have any problems at all.

At first, you can use it for less serious stuff until you see how much it works.

I do, I host my own mail server.

Technically it's not very challenging. The problem is the total dominance of a few actors and a lot of spammers.

I haven't had spam issues since using a catch-all and giving everyone a unique address, blocking ones that receive spam

Won't work if you need a fixed address on a business card or something, but in case you don't...

Waiting for the day they catch on. Then it's time for a challenge-response protocol I guess

But you don't get billions of requests per minute. You get maybe five requests per second (300 per minute) on a bad day. The sites that seem to be getting badly attacked, they get 200 per second, which is still within reach of a self hosted firewall. Think about how many CPU cycles per packet that allows for. Hardly a real DDoS.

The only reason you even want to firewall 200 requests per second is that the code downstream of the firewall takes more than 5ms to service a request, so you could also consider improving that. And if you're only getting <5 and your server isn't overloaded then why block anything at all?

Such entitlement.

How much additional tax money should I spend at work so the AI scum can make 200 searches per second?

Human and 'nice' bots make about 5 per second.