Readit News logoReadit News
positiveblue commented on The web does not need gatekeepers: Cloudflare’s new “signed agents” pitch   positiveblue.substack.com... · Posted by u/positiveblue
positiveblue · 2 days ago
I could not give less of a shit between whitelist/allowlist. I use them indistinctly.

You can sleep peacefully today but you should try to don't over stress from how other people write on the internet

positiveblue commented on The web does not need gatekeepers: Cloudflare’s new “signed agents” pitch   positiveblue.substack.com... · Posted by u/positiveblue
calmbonsai · 3 days ago
While I concur with the effective tech, I don't think this is something that's a net win for society.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should and I don't feel any one entity (private or public) should be an arbiter on these matters.

This is something that can, and should, be negotiated at the "last virtual mile".

positiveblue · 2 days ago
100% needs to be done at the last mile.
positiveblue commented on The web does not need gatekeepers: Cloudflare’s new “signed agents” pitch   positiveblue.substack.com... · Posted by u/positiveblue
JohnMakin · 3 days ago
> The same is true online. A cryptographic signature that claims “I am acting on behalf of X” means nothing unless it is tied to something real, like a verifiable infrastructure or a range of IPs. Without that, I can simply hand the passport to another agent, and they can act as if they were me. The passport becomes nothing more than a token anyone can pass around.

how does this person think jwt’s work?

positiveblue · 2 days ago
Hi, "this person here" Cloudflare will block that request that has a jwt because "it does not come from a person".

What I was trying to say is that even the discussion "is this a bot 100% sure or not" makes no sense.

positiveblue commented on The web does not need gatekeepers: Cloudflare’s new “signed agents” pitch   positiveblue.substack.com... · Posted by u/positiveblue
jbrisson · 3 days ago
"In the 90s, Microsoft tried to “embrace and extend” the web, but failed. And that failure was a blessing."

Basically MS tried to kill the web with their Win95 release, the infamous Internet Explorer and their shitty IIS/Frontpage tandem.

I deeply hate them since that day.

positiveblue · 3 days ago
many people don't remember/know history though
positiveblue commented on The web does not need gatekeepers: Cloudflare’s new “signed agents” pitch   positiveblue.substack.com... · Posted by u/positiveblue
ShakataGaNai · 3 days ago
Agreed. It might not be THE BEST solution, but it is a solution that appears to work well.

Centralization bad yada yada. But if Cloudflare can get most major AI players to participate, then convince the major CDN's to also participate.... ipso facto columbo oreo....standard.

positiveblue · 3 days ago
yep, that's why I am writing this now :)

You can see it in the web vs mobile apps.

Many people may not see a problem on wallet gardens but reality is that we have much less innovation in mobile than in web because anyone can spawn a web server vs publish an app in the App Store (apple)

positiveblue commented on The web does not need gatekeepers: Cloudflare’s new “signed agents” pitch   positiveblue.substack.com... · Posted by u/positiveblue
avtar · 3 days ago
> Wait, what?

I was referring to the following image:

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!zRK-!,w_1250,h_703,c...

positiveblue · 3 days ago
I know the image, what I do not understand is the argument between using it being incompatible with "fairness" and "openness"
positiveblue commented on The web does not need gatekeepers: Cloudflare’s new “signed agents” pitch   positiveblue.substack.com... · Posted by u/positiveblue
hoppp · 3 days ago
Should use a public blockchain for this? Its good for it, store public keys, verify signatures etc.. none of that token stuff tho
positiveblue · 3 days ago
No
positiveblue commented on The web does not need gatekeepers: Cloudflare’s new “signed agents” pitch   positiveblue.substack.com... · Posted by u/positiveblue
notatoad · 3 days ago
Which is really all that cloudflare is building here that people are mad about. It’s a way to give bots access to paywalled content.
positiveblue · 3 days ago
Where everyone needs a cloudflare account to be able to pay*
positiveblue commented on The web does not need gatekeepers: Cloudflare’s new “signed agents” pitch   positiveblue.substack.com... · Posted by u/positiveblue
avtar · 3 days ago
> An allowlist run by ONE company?

An allowlist run by one company that site owners chose to engage with. But the irony of taking an ideological stance about fairness while using AI generated comics for blog posts…

positiveblue · 3 days ago
> An allowlist run by one company that site owners chose to engage with.

Exactly, no problem with that, just hinting that's not a protocol.

> But the irony of taking an ideological stance about fairness while using AI generated comics for blog posts

Wait, what?

positiveblue commented on The web does not need gatekeepers: Cloudflare’s new “signed agents” pitch   positiveblue.substack.com... · Posted by u/positiveblue
seanvelasco · 3 days ago
as a Cloudflare customer, I am happy with their proposition. I personally do not want companies like Perplexity that fake their user-agent and ignore my robots.txt to trespass.

and isn't this why people sign up with Cloudflare in the first place? for bot protection? to me, this is just the same, but with agents.

i love the idea of an open internet, but this requires all party to be honest. a company like Perplexity that fakes their user-agent to get around blocks disrespects that idea.

my attitude towards agents is positive. if a user used an LLM to access my websites and web apps, i'm all for it. but the LLM providers must disclose who they are - that they are OpenAI, Google, Meta, or the snake oil company Perplexity

positiveblue · 3 days ago
The point is "should everyone just have an account with Cloudflare then"

u/positiveblue

KarmaCake day193June 17, 2019View Original