Also, interesting comment I found on HackerNews (HN):

This post was definitely demoted by HN. It stayed in the first position for less than 5 minutes and, as it quickly gathered upvotes, it jumped straight into 24th and quickly fell off the first page as it got 200 or so more points in less than an hour.

I’m 80% confident HN tried to hide this link. It’s the fastest downhill I’ve noticed on here, and I’ve been lurking and commenting for longer than 10 years.

  • draughtcyclist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Realistically, this is why you pay for Akamai. You don’t get these shenanigans.

    How the fuck were they still on a $250 dollar a month plan when they pumped through $2000 a month worth of traffic? That’s shady on the companiy’s part and Cloudflare shouldn’t have allowed it to happen in the first place.

    Each party played their part here and did shitty things. Sounds like the tech equivalent of a crackhead arguing about selling stuff to the pawn shop employee.

    • ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The $250/month plan supposedly includes unlimited traffic. If there’s actually a limit where you’re supposed to switch to a more expensive plan with no standardized price, maybe CF should say what the limit is?

      • draughtcyclist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        They absolutely should have outlined a traffic limit for the $250 a month plan. That’s on Cloudflare for allowing it.

        That said, if you make wildly excessive use of that loophole it probably shouldn’t surprise you if they do something like this. They called it “trust and safety” because it allows them to do anything they want under the guide of security.

        Really, they didn’t define their service clearly and wanted to fire them as a customer unless they paid up for what they felt they were owed.

        • TheTetrapod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          If something is marketed as “unlimited”, I don’t think there is such a thing as “wildly excessive use”. This isn’t a competitive eater going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and being mad about getting kicked out. It’s a business using a service in a way that’s seemingly in-line with what they paid for.

          • JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            It’s the same definition of “unlimited” that Telcos use: you pay for unlimited but it really is XXgb of data per month, after that they either disconnect you or throttle your traffic at a glacial pace…