Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm happy this community is coming to its senses. When I voiced this concerns ten months ago the downvotes were in the double digit.

most of the contention was that people was able to 'self-host' amp, as if that was going to happen for anything but few selected cases.

> the solid connection between users and ALL their activities [] seems to completely dissolve any anonymity, period.

and wait to hear what cloudflare does!

> We collect End Users’ information when they use our Customers’ websites, web applications, and APIs. This information may include but is not limited to IP addresses, system configuration information, and other information about traffic to and from Customers’ websites

I'm happy this community is coming to its senses. When I voiced this concerns ten months ago the downvotes were in the double digit.

I noticed that of all the controversial stuff I say on here, it's the stuff that criticizes Google that gets downvoted. The obvious conclusion is that there's a heavy number of Google employees here who feel, I suppose you can call it "passion."

However it's obvious to me that there's an authoritarian posturing that Google is pursuing. Surely the stopping of disabling of video autoplay should have been a big red fucking flag to stop using Chrome if you value your privacy and control over your equipment. You don't need to be Richard Stallman to understand that Google is a core ad-tech company, and they're doing everything possible to facilitate that industry and its dubious profits.


To be fair to cloudflare, this is what the website being protected pays them to do. They can't effectively block malicious actors that are 100x more sophisticated than me, without being able to analyze that data.

I understand the risk of "evil" they could pull off with such a huge portion if internet traffic flowing through them, but the "you pay us for this service" model means they don't _need_ to monetize in evil ways. Whether they end up doing that or not remains to be seen.

I'm 100% against AMP though. As noted elsewhere, Google has repeatedly demonstrated they're not to be trusted.

Correct, we do not need to monetize user traffic in evil ways. Our customer is the owner of a website, or someone exposing an API backend for an app, etc. They pay us for the service. They pay us more than it costs us to run the service. If we started monetizing our customers' traffic we'd be out of business in a flash.

well of course we all love cloudflare, it's great, we pay for it at work and I use it on almost all my projects at home.

but while that database might not be monetized by cloudflare, the mere existence of it makes it a high value target for everyone else.

we got all high confidence on cf's engineering, but we're one inch away from having everyone skeleton in the closet running out at large.

I mean usa just had an election whose result was allegedly influenced one way or another by state sponsored hacking. it doesn't get more higher stakes than that.

Exactly. I am not concerned that CF will "monetize" - I am concerned they will share data with government/other parties whom users have no knowledge of, or recourse against, said sharing.

Select * from population where political-affiliation is far-left AND age >30 AND reddit-user-name contains etc...


I think a lot of Google people hang out on HN, so there's a downvote brigade for Google criticism. Same with Apple, Tesla, Microsoft, and other large or cult following tech companies.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact