@kemonine The bot doesn't care about you personally. It's doing a public service for your readers, who you otherwise sent into a #netneutrality-hostile #privacy-abusive walled-garden. It's to protect them so they are warned and have a trustworthy link to follow.

@cloudflarelink

@resist1984

By running it through yet another third party service that's hosted online by a much smaller company or individual(s) that likely don't have the scale, expertise or funding that CloudFlare has?

Wouldn't that be *more* dangerous?

It's still a MITM and by having another service between CloudFlare and the user that's a *greater* risk profile.

That and if you're blocking CloudFlare "on principle" or "for security" why the fuck would you even consider viewing a site behind their services? If you're blocking CloudFlare "on principle" or "for security" you shouldn't be adding more layers, you should be OK with losing access to some sites.

Reducing your risk profile or sticking to your principles means going without at times. Not compromising them creatively.

@kemonine "scale" is a big part of the problem with CloudFlare, who has #centralized over 10% of the web into the restricted walled-garden of one single corporate power with access to enough sensitive traffic all in one place to make every spy org in the world salivate.

You say "expertise"; I say "incompetence". No service of this kind is as poor at separating attack traffic from legitimate traffic as CloudFlare. No one is even close to their level of collateral damage.

@kemonine An archive page is not good at moving information the other direction, so users are less inclined to fill forms and do HTTP PUT ops. As for HTTP GET, CF doesn't see or track who reads archive.org, who is less of a threat precisely because of its smaller scale as well as the traffic being mostly one directional. Archive.org also does not treat #Tor users with hostility, thus not driving ppl off Tor.