Le site unpkg.com est-il sûr ?

I hate CDN's that are required for site to function - and I hate Cloudfare, because of the numerous times I've ended with a page that shows problem with Cloudfare (or something) with some diagram that's not useful to me, even less for average users, as it presents no way to get around the issue. Luckily this seems to happen almost never on other than, ahem, torrent sites. But I don't give a dung about Cloudfares history of "censoring" sites. I guess the same guy who wrote about it here, "Francewhoa", and I almost had a knee-jerk reaction. He even put a link to one case - not a good example. It's not censorship when the client breaks the Terms of Service - and it wasn't a case of "I don't like the content, I'll kick him" (even if private business do have right to do so, it's not something I'd support). That case had long had issues, and Cloudfare had tried to keep them as customers, but they were unwilling radical right boneheads, so I guess they just thought there was "muh freedom of speekz" and had probably not even read the Licence Agreement/ToS. Look, while right wing media made a big deal he was terminated because of his opinions, that just wasn't the case. And he was given more than fair number of chances and time to fix things. He was breaking the Terms, which will legally allow removing the license. In fact, it's usually worded as "leads to immediate termination of license" - probably here as well, but it seems they were actually being nicer than say, YouTube. They don't even have to notice you, that's mentioned in most licences as well - but they did so much more. So if some right wing extremists wants to defend that truly disgusting site and badmouth Cloudfare for it, check out from multiple sources what the case really is! This is a reason why one should *never* get their information from only politically compatible sites of you. I mean, I see how awful the two networks are, their populist arguments are often so obvious, but among proper news medias, I also follow Fox News and RT on TV - interestingly both made the ridiculous claim in days after the storming of capitol, that the organiser (and much of the crowd) were in fact Antifa people. People hear this and accept it as is - then suddenly they stopped mentioning it (of course RT is less scurrilous, and it was a guest who made the claim - but Fox kept that claim going on for some time. Of course, had anyone verified if the person in video claimed to be "leader of Antifa" - which btw doesn't exist, it's not an organization, it's a group of like minded anarchists. It's an anarchist movement, but do most people realize that anarchist movement can't be an organization, with leaders and members? RT newer corrected it, and Fox likely stopped mentioning it when it came out that he was most certainly some Antifa organiser (which would be correct term, but it's not a position, anyone can organise an Antifa happening, be it a riot, peaceful demonstration or free meal distribution at some park). Also, Antifa is not behind BLM, people who identify with Antifa took part in it because Antifa specifically stands against fascism and racism, and BLM was about opposing latter. Anyway, I see no reason to block this, but maybe I shouldn't allow it fully either... After all, NoScript does allow rules to allow or deny by primary domain - but not sure how. Since most sites work without it allowed, I'd prefer to not allow it globally. The three stars come from the nuisance I've had with some sites that use Cloudfare - I wonder, could it be they use it on server side only, because NoScript didn't show cloudfare domains to allow/block on them? Anyway, seems OK to me to allow it.

This domain primary activity is global content delivery network (CDN) This domain name is owned and maintained by Michael Jackson. According to him, unpkg is not affiliated with or supported by npm, Inc. in any way. Source at https://unpkg.com The challenge with unpkg is that it is powered by Cloudflare. Both Cloudflare owner Matthew Prince and the Cloudflare administration, have an history of censoring people and organizations with views they disagree with. In other words, if Cloudflare disagree with your personal views, it is risky that they will censor you. In turn, your visitors will not be able to access your content. Of course Cloudflare are really free to do business or not do business with anyone to their liking. While at the same time, if someone use a website owned by Cloudflare to make a call for violence, does that make Cloudflare calling for violence, anti-Semitism, neo-nazy? Of course not. Because the user's views and her/his subject matter and contents thereof, such as, but not limited to, text, media, or otherwise, do not necessarily reflect the views of the Cloudflare administration. How about the same thing the other way around for Cloudflare's clients? Source • ***** • ***** Disclaimer • I strongly believe that diversity is a strength not a weakness. Thanks you for being you ♥. • I disagree with calls for violence by any user on any platform • I am not affiliated with 8ch/8kun or its users • I am assuming that Michael Jackson choose Cloudflare in good faith. Maybe he is not aware of Cloudflare's censorship.