Passa ai contenuti principali

Reflections on Cloudflare’s Annual Founders’ Letter

Some personal considerations

I just read Cloudflare’s 2025 Annual Founders’ Letter and found it quite insightful. Much of today’s lobbying, often driven by governments and large media companies, seems to push toward a strictly regulated internet, a model profoundly disrespectful of the values the net was originally built upon. These lobbying actions can be summed up in just one word: censorship, with privacy compression not far behind.

Cloudflare’s approach, on the other hand, feels very different: a liberal, agnostic stance that doesn’t deny the need for content monetization. As they put it: “what fundamentally needed to change was not more content moderation at the infrastructure level but instead a healthier incentive system for content creation.”

AI has dramatically changed the rules. Instead of driving users to websites where creators might at least earn some reward in terms of advertising revenue or personal recognition, AI agents now consume the content for us, leaving (at best) only faint traces of attribution.

Sites that built their reputation on answers (like Stack Exchange) have been torn apart by AI. The simplest LLM can now surface correct answers without the hassle of scrolling through hundreds of posts.

Social media platforms, on the other hand, seem more resistant: users still feel the urge to open the original article so they can comment, debate, or rant. But even this model has its dark side: the rise of content farms that thrive on clickbait or ragebait.

Cloudflare’s vision is to create a new business model that incentivizes genuine content creation: rewarding authors when their work is used to train or answer through AI systems. It’s almost like the old “bounty” model of Stack Exchange. But with real money at stake.

If this model works, it could realign the incentives of the internet, giving creators a fair share in the AI-driven future. The real challenge is whether the industry will value people (users and creators) who make the web worth having over the seemingly unlimited funds that governments and disinformation factories are ready to pour into the system.

Commenti

Post popolari in questo blog

Il mio blog

Benvenuto nel mio laboratorio digitale Opero nel campo dell’ integrazione tra infrastrutture cloud , con particolare attenzione a Linux su Azure , alta disponibilità , disaster recovery e soluzioni open source a basso costo . Questo spazio nasce come estensione naturale delle conversazioni che si sviluppano quotidianamente su canali più dinamici e collaborativi. Cosa troverai qui Appunti e riflessioni tecniche da esperienze reali Strumenti e script open source condivisibili Sintesi di certificazioni, studi e test di laboratorio Considerazioni sull’evoluzione delle pratiche DevOps in ambienti ibridi Collegati con me altrove 🔗 LinkedIn – il mio profilo professionale e le certificazioni aggiornate 🧵 Reddit – discussioni su automazione, cloud ibrido e sicurezza 👾 Discord - Tech-Morpork – community ispirata a Discworld, dove discutiamo di tool, script e best practice 🐘 Mastodon – per aggiornamenti decentralizzati e conversazioni tecniche aperte 🌀...

Who Will Name the Machines?

GoDaddy just announced a “Trusted Identity Naming System for AI Agents.” At first, the original blog post from GoDaddy sounds good. The promise of an open system is catchy: “New agnostic framework allows anyone to easily find, verify and trust AI agents.” A way to give artificial intelligences unique names, “build confidence,” and let humans know which agents to trust. But it may quietly reintroduce the oldest form of digital control: deciding who gets to exist online. In practice, it reads like the oldest trick on the internet — turning trust into a service . A Familiar Pattern Every decade or so, someone rediscovers that there’s money in “managing trust.” In the 2000s it was Extended Validation certificates. Then came the blue-tick era of “verified” users. Now it’s the AI agent namespace — a new market for digital legitimacy. GoDaddy isn’t proposing a decentralized identity system; it’s proposing a central ledger of permission. No standards body, no RFC, no hint of open g...