Looks like it might be global based on the subreddit[1]. Oddly reinstalling the app fixed it for me, while it still shows the Cloudflare error page on Chromium. Meanwhile, the website loads fine on Firefox.
When a single entity controls a significant share of internet traffic, it opens the door to various issues. Cloudflare, for instance, has the capacity to unilaterally determine who can or cannot access the internet, effectively setting the rules. While these powers often originate from well-intentioned goals, such as blocking malicious actors, they can eventually be applied in more arbitrary ways. Arguments for privacy often fall flat in this context, as robust privacy measures could inadvertently protect malicious users. The average internet user generally lacks the understanding to grasp these complexities. Even unintentional errors, like merging a flawed code update, can result in widespread internet outages, as has happened with Cloudflare in the past.
This concentration of power in the hands of a few companies, like Cloudflare, Google, and Meta, is precisely why anti-trust laws were established. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of political will to enforce these laws effectively. As a result, the future landscape of the internet is likely to differ radically from what we are familiar with, and not for the better.
"Anti-trust" is not "anti-monopoly". Monopolys aren't illegal. Maintaining a monopoly by preventing others from competing is the thing that tends to be illegal.
"Control" has to be properly contextualized. Just because one company is the only available option for a service or product doesn't mean that business "controls" the industry.
Natural monopolies occur and get displaced by innovation all the time without any regulatory involvement.
You're making an unsubstantiated claim that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
You're also making assumptions about the motive behind my statements of fact to convince yourself or others that I'm wrong without disputing the relevant details of my comment.
There are vanishingly few instances of a natural monopoly occurring out of thin air and remaining a monopoly. In fact, there's a strong argument that regulatory capture is the cause of the more egregious examples of long-standing monopolies, which would not have continued to exist were it not for the burdens of entry creating through coordination with the monopolistic entities.
In our current political environment, it's hard to argue anything we face is actual capitalism as opposed to cronyism.
Cloudflare is half as old as Google and even younger than Amazon, yet your concern is with their monopolistic potential. Explain how that's possible if the companies at the top are maintaining all the control.
We've seen significant shrinkage among the FAANG and their peers in the past few years.
Walmart was considered a massive monopolist threat before Amazon came along and ate their lunch. These are examples that fly in the face of your contention.
What are some examples that support your argument that any of these businesses holds a de facto monopoly?
Again, the root cause of most of the monopolistic effects in our market are due to regulatory capture. Without regulations to set minimums for competitors, they face the threat of newcomers. This is why Walmart and other big organizations support minimum wage increases despite the negative impact on their bottom line. New supermarkets can't even begin to incorporate if they're faced with massive wage and regulatory requirements.
Except that the examples I gave fly directly in the face of the situation you're stating. Amazon replaced Walmart with exponentially less starting cash. Netflix did the same to the entire media industry.
Venture capital and business loans could easily fund the next big industry giant provided the barriers to entry aren't astronomical. But corporations are utilizing their lobbying powers to capture the relevant regulatory market in ways that protect their interests.
Your problem is with corporatism and cronyism, whether you realize it or not.
And to be clear - CloudFlare is hardly the only available option. Akamai has existed for significantly longer, and there's plenty of competitors. Cloudflare did not invent the CDN.
It could be random, it could be the fallout from an attack, but it interrupts our workflows and our days and so we discuss it because working from home means no more sword fights anymore
Yeah, I cannot work out what happened here from the title, link and comments. Do Cloudflare provide ISP services? Is Cloudflares DNS not resolving Discord? Is Discord using Cloudflare as a CDN?
598 comments
[ 6.0 ms ] story [ 505 ms ] thread[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/discordapp/new
This concentration of power in the hands of a few companies, like Cloudflare, Google, and Meta, is precisely why anti-trust laws were established. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of political will to enforce these laws effectively. As a result, the future landscape of the internet is likely to differ radically from what we are familiar with, and not for the better.
Just because a company is offering services enough that a plurality of users accept, doesn't warrant government interception or action.
You are incorrect.
Natural monopolies occur and get displaced by innovation all the time without any regulatory involvement.
Capitalism is dangerously flawed without carefully considered regulation.
You're also making assumptions about the motive behind my statements of fact to convince yourself or others that I'm wrong without disputing the relevant details of my comment.
There are vanishingly few instances of a natural monopoly occurring out of thin air and remaining a monopoly. In fact, there's a strong argument that regulatory capture is the cause of the more egregious examples of long-standing monopolies, which would not have continued to exist were it not for the burdens of entry creating through coordination with the monopolistic entities.
In our current political environment, it's hard to argue anything we face is actual capitalism as opposed to cronyism.
We live in a world that is driven by a remarkably small number of massive corporations.
Huge corporations acquire smaller corporations. Huge corporation merge with other huge corporations.
To say this type of behaviour is not at least serving the same negative function as a monopoly is utterly disingenuous.
This type of capitalism is not working well.
We've seen significant shrinkage among the FAANG and their peers in the past few years.
Walmart was considered a massive monopolist threat before Amazon came along and ate their lunch. These are examples that fly in the face of your contention.
What are some examples that support your argument that any of these businesses holds a de facto monopoly?
Again, the root cause of most of the monopolistic effects in our market are due to regulatory capture. Without regulations to set minimums for competitors, they face the threat of newcomers. This is why Walmart and other big organizations support minimum wage increases despite the negative impact on their bottom line. New supermarkets can't even begin to incorporate if they're faced with massive wage and regulatory requirements.
I'm trying to talk generally about the concept of monopolies in a supposed free market economy and the need for regulation.
Fundamentally, we don't necessarily need business to operate at the scale its grown to.
The only reason these businesses have grown so vastly is because it increases profit in the hands of fewer people.
We (as a society) can do better.
Venture capital and business loans could easily fund the next big industry giant provided the barriers to entry aren't astronomical. But corporations are utilizing their lobbying powers to capture the relevant regulatory market in ways that protect their interests.
Your problem is with corporatism and cronyism, whether you realize it or not.
Web browser version works just fine though.
In other words, this thread shouldn’t really be posted here.
https://www.cloudflarestatus.com
What is "blocking traffic" in this context?