Author did a surprisingly good job hanging on to all the receipts to support his claim "cloudflare bad." But his alternatives are all CDN providers - which is not even the side of the business that makes cloudflare unique and makes them money. The piece, thorough as it may be, does not offer alternatives to products that cover the exciting parts of their business and I was looking forward to seeing what those were - for example tailscale or Pangolin (Open source alternative to Cloudflare Tunnels) or equivalents for serverless/edge compute. This makes it feel as if the author does not _really_ understand cloudflare's role/position and that this article is just a collection of links that report of the company's (valid) imperfections. For example, their workers platform, DDoS protection, and software-defined network functions (WAN, firewall, Zero-trust, etc) have made my life as a developer in my last few roles very productive and successful. And migrating away from those services was just as easy as signing up.

It might sound like I am defending cloudflare, but I am not. I share the author's concern about them becoming a monopoly that MITM's a lot of the Internet. But the author provides no evidence of to this claim. My experience has been the opposite: cloudflare interoperated with legacy systems and other cloud providers without locking us in or using anti-competitive tactics. Their presence often improved integration even when other vendors didn’t reciprocate. When people flock to a service because it’s genuinely useful rather than "can't leave Hotel California", that’s not a monopoly — it’s market preference.

That said, there is a real risk if innovation stalls or leadership becomes greedy. Companies that stop innovating sometimes resort to aggressive or extractive practices to stay relevant. It seems to be the trend once companies get too big to die - innovation stalls and their flywheel slows and they become desperate (or greedy) to stay relevant. I would monitor for those signs before I sound any alarm.