On top of that CloudFlare as a free service helped lots of small controversial, hated-by-some-government websites to stay alive. They protect >ANYONE< that is being DDoS-ed usually for free.
If keeping freedom of speech ( as in "being online" ) for all those users they protect, for you is "at the expense of minority", I think you are totally biased.
I don't see this in any practical fashion. I can visit a CloudFlare hosted site from the regular internet for hours (even scrape automatically) with no problems; the first time I hit the same site through Tor, it gets a double or triple capchca.
Perhaps it should be a blacklist instead of a whitelist. Defaults matter.
A blacklist would do nothing to solve this, since the fundamental problem is the way Tor and VPNs work, by aggregating traffic into exit nodes at specific IPs.
Edit: And upon further thought, it most likely is a blacklist. A bunch of malicious requests go out from one IP, so that IP is blocked. Because it's an exit node, it also blocks a bunch of other legitimate people.
I mean blacklist "Tor" to give them capchcas, instead of having to whitelist them to not give them capchcas.
You don't?
> I can visit a CloudFlare hosted site from the regular internet for hours (even scrape automatically) with no problems
Ah but this is not the same. Try doing so from an IP which is also sending malicious traffic, and you will see the same issue.
Much like I don't care which bus gets me from point A to point B, or if I'm the only the one on the bus or not... it's the experience of the trip between points that matters.
You're fine with the anonymity industry throwing their weight around at the expense of a handful of CDN's, though. I understand Tor's need to protect users. That's why they need to find a way to treat malicious traffic different than normal traffic. Then adopting them might be a good business decision.
I have barely ever seen any legitimate Tor traffic, it has all been spam bots or other kinds of traffic I would rather avoid.