{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreicsb4yc5gfkdn3acfworjjykjedj4n7phzhn6yo4tiz6ejgld3p6q",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mmxwmrq7op52"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33349&p=274874#p274874",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-29T05:58:48.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "> I can't believe all the ISP don't see these \"bots\" \"AI scrapers\"\n\nOh make no mistake. They would absolutely see them -- they just aren't looking.\nIt's primarily because most ISPs (practically all of them) have this aversion to egress filtering. What I mean with that is that, in general on the larger scale, ISPs don't want to spend some of that money they take from their subscribers to invest in filtering bad traffic originating in their network, because it impacts others outside of their organization (and not them). Instead, they focus on ingress, i.e. filtering bad traffic targeting them.\nCloudflare's turnstile is just more of that: trying to mitigate attacks on the receiving end, not the originating end. If egress filtering became enforced globally, that would solve the majority of these problems (as well as SPAM) at the root. It wouldn't even be that hard to do if there's willingness, because there can be severe consequences for ISPs if they don't play nice, like losing their peering agreements. There's just one problem: the industry doesn't want to, because their bad traffic clients are paying them good money for big data pipelines that they would lose by punishing the bad behaviour.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "General Discussion • Re: wtf? almost every forum and website is on cloudflare now?",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-29T05:58:48.000Z"
}