this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
31 points (94.3% liked)

Selfhosted

40198 readers
1050 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
31
What's wrong with using cloudflared? (lemmy.world)
submitted 10 months ago by damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I read a comment on here some time ago where the person said they were using cloudflared to expose some of their self-hosted stuff to the Internet so they can access it remotely.

I am currently using it to expose my RSS feed reader, and it works out fine. I also like the simplicity of Cloudflare's other offerings.

Any thoughts on why cloudflared is not a good idea? What alternatives would you suggest? How easy/difficult are they to setup?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ck_@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Surely you have to acknowledge that it's disingenuous to copy the last sentence of the clause and omit the first sentence that says the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make.

No it doesn't. The first sentence does not state anything that is not already clarified by law. Hence, it adds zero value to the actual meaning of the paragraph.

You are a person. Your basic human rights are guaranteed to you by law. Given that, you hereby grant me the right to enter your house and shave your head at my discretion and however often I wish, if I deem it necessary to provide to a free service that I don't classify further in this agreement.

Same thing, you can say if I redact the first two sentences from the quote I'm being disingenuous, but really I'm just trying to get one over on you by making you feel like you have some control in this when in actually you do not.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 10 months ago

The first part of the sentence you quoted says "subject to the terms of this agreement". The most salient part of the agreement is the sentence you omitted.

Your claim was:

You’ll have to be fine with Cloudflare having any and all rights to the data transmitted through the tunnel, while you in return have none.

... and you omitted the sentence which describes the rights you have as the user, contradicting your assertion that users have none. If you don't think that's disingenuous then I don't know what to tell you mate.