No, sorry this is 100% on you. You should have implemented throttling, and daily query limits. Once you put something on the internet for free, you can't complain then if people are using it.
Yes he can complain, and bombarding a free service for unlimited requests isn't okay.
For starters because the people doing that, will usually be among the first to cry when the free service stops being free, blocks their requests or suddenly requires an API key.
Hummmm.... OP's website on https://getjsonip.com/ says:
> Supports unlimited requests and is free.
Seems like we have a bit of a contradiction here.
There is a difference between gracefully and responsibly using something that is offered for free, and just bombarding it with requests like no tomorrow.
People can of course do the latter. But then they don't get to complain when at some point, the available offerings present walls of legalese instead of a few simple and clear statements, and the user experience goes from seamless and easy to "Click here to register an API Key"
One thing is to own a service that's used by 10 MAU and you extend the service with a job that calls the OP's service 100 times a second. That's bad, you are using way more than you need.
Another thing is to own a mobile app used by 10M MAU and you embed the OP's service into the app. That's not bad intention, you just added a new service to your app. The problem is that the OP's definition of "unlimited" is not really unlimited.
There's something about reasonability and fair-use and use over time going on here, but I just can't put my finger on it.
For example here's the Backblaze team verifying that their unlimited personal backup is indeed unlimited, with one single user storing 430TB for $6/month. The users spending $6/month who use a couple GB more than offset the cost of the 430TB guy. If your business model doesn't support the ability to get in the black, you have a failing business. This isn't the user's responsibility to fix, it's the failing service with a bad business model.
> As you can see, we lose money on a few customers at the high end (we cannot store 430TB of data for only $6/month), but since more customers just want to be reasonable and backup their laptops we are profitable and fully sustainable on the "average"
> Somebody who is costing Backblaze $2,150/month and is only paying $6/month :-)
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/b6lbew/comment/ejlbsq...
No difference here.
But here, you are actually taking resources from the author. That's something that is not only rude, but also puts the user at risk. The author is really nice for maintaining service, he could have just stopped it, or even served malicious payloads. After all, there is no contract saying that he should be nice. Here, despite the strong language, he is trying to stay nice instead of just cutting a service that many people rely on, which he has all right to do.
Throttling and daily query limits would make the service unreliable and not so different from cutting it off completely. Keep in mind that it is not a single user abusing the service, it is many users who got redirected there by an abusive app. He could have used the "API key" that is suggested here, but it is a hurdle that will affect usability.
Do not serve it to assholes?
You mean, like they say they have been trying to do, in the complaint?
Person has a valid complaint, goddamnit, they have all the rights to complain.