📈 Les dons via Liberapay ont atteint plus de 5000 euros pour la première fois cette semaine, grâce aux 3881 mécènes qui soutiennent 721 créateurs.

liberapay.com/about/stats

📈 Donations through Liberapay have risen to more than €5000 for the first time this week, thanks to the 3881 patrons who are supporting 721 creators.

liberapay.com/about/stats

@el_joa A SEPA transfer isn't simple. You have to go to your bank's website, log in, and input at least an IBAN and the payment amount. That's more complicated than card payments and direct debits.

Moreover, the platform can't automatically confirm that the bank transfer was successful unless it can attribute a different IBAN to each donor, and that's not easy.

@wowaname @icedquinn We use Cloudflare for the three things you mentioned. So far we haven't used any of their paid services.

To replace CF we would need a good anycast hosting provider that doesn't charge its customers for traffic, or at least wouldn't send us a large bill if we were targeted by a DDoS. It probably wouldn't be able to mitigate the largest DDoS attacks like Cloudflare can, but the risk could be acceptable.

@selea @Lofenyy Again: how so? What are you worried Cloudflare will do?

@aktivismoEstasMiaLuo Bullshit. I don't see how you could even argue that banks have a higher level of security than Cloudflare. It's a stupid claim that you could only argue with anecdotal evidence.

For the record, Cloudflare is PCI DSS Level 1 compliant, which means that payment processors are allowed to send card numbers through it.

The Capitol One leak wasn't Amazon's fault, the same thing could have happened if the bank had used another service provider.

@josealberto4444 As previously stated, Cloudflare no longer uses Google's reCAPTCHA, and Tor users who try to access Liberapay usually don't get a CAPTCHA challenge.

@aktivismoEstasMiaLuo If you think banks are a standard of quality, then you're the one who's foolish.

Cloudflare definitely isn't the “web's most notorious privacy & netneutrality abuser”. The fact that you claim this shows once again how biased you are against this specific company.

@aktivismoEstasMiaLuo I'm not aware of CF having ever lied or done anything else that would justify distrusting them as much as you do.

Your repeated claim that it's particularly dangerous to use CF for financial services doesn't make much sense. They're obviously not going to steal money from people, so I don't know what you're worried about.

If using CF is “reckless”, then every significant platform similar to ours is reckless, including Patreon and Open Collective.

@aktivismoEstasMiaLuo CF has in fact announced just yesterday that some of their customers can now control which data centers are used to process requests: blog.cloudflare.com/introducin

It seems to me that your “job” is just wasting people's time. You're not accomplishing anything other than that.

@aktivismoEstasMiaLuo You seem to have completely missed the point of what I was saying. Any hosting provider with a significant market share “centralizes” the web. Accusing a company of centralizing the web is accusing it of being too good at attracting and retaining clients. What are they supposed to do? Sabotage themselves?

@aktivismoEstasMiaLuo CF doesn't attack Tor users. In fact they've repeatedly tried to improve their service for Tor users: blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare and blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare

CF also allows website admins to choose whether requests coming through Tor should be challenged or not.

You haven't provided any evidence that CF is involved in surveillance. The fact that a company provides some services for free doesn't prove anything other than this: they're trying to attract new users.

@aktivismoEstasMiaLuo You claimed that CF violates privacy, but you haven't provided any evidence that they're collecting and sharing private data.

Net neutrality isn't very relevant since CF isn't a consumer ISP. You haven't explained how CF “works against” net neutrality.

Complaining that CF “centralizes” the web is basically the same as complaining that they're doing their job too well and have too many customers.

@Niquarl

@aktivismoEstasMiaLuo Your first link confirms that your claims aren't substantiated: “This is not, of course, evidence or proof.”

Your other links aren't any better. Two of them are from 2016 and are at least partially obsolete.

@Niquarl

@icedquinn Cloudflare no longer drops any client who's under attack, since they have enough capacity to mitigate even the largest attacks. blog.cloudflare.com/unmetered- I doubt Sucuri can say the same.

Cloudflare's decisions to stop serving two highly controversial websites were questionable but understandable, they don't justify boycotting Cloudflare.

@icedquinn Switching from Cloudflare to a technically similar alternative wouldn't really solve the problem, because there would still be a middleman capable of collecting private data.

@aktivismoEstasMiaLuo Please stop spamming us and our users with unsubstantiated accusations against Cloudflare. It's annoying and you're not convincing anyone.

@Niquarl

@i3x Our emails don't come from a single server, but I can tell you that the first message was sent from 54.240.4.11 to 198.54.114.239 at 09:42 UTC.

@i3x Retried sending the email again, same error. It's definitely a problem on your side.

Show more
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!