Privacy cannot exist in an environment where the host gets to decide who access the web page. I'm okay with rate limiting or otherwise blocking activity that creates too much of a load, but trying to prevent automated access is impossible withou preventing access from real people.
If you want the best of both worlds, i.e. just post freely but make money from ads, or inserting hidden pixels to update some profile about me, well good luck. I'll choose whether I want to look at ads, or load tracking pixels, and my answer is no.
Free Software is the only place where this is a real abridgement of rights and intention, and it's over. They've already been trained on all of it, and no judge will tell them to stop, and no congressman will tell them to stop.
There are people behind those connection requests. I don't try to guess on my server who is a bot and who is not; I'll make mistakes and probably bias against people who use uncommon setups (those needing accessibility aids or using e.g. experimental software that improves some aspect like privacy or functionality)
Sure, I have rights as a website owner. I can take the whole thing offline; I can block every 5th request; I can allow each /16 block to make 1000 requests per day; I can accept requests only from clients that have a Firefox user agent string. So long as it's equally applied to everyone and it's not based on a prohibited category such as gender or religious conviction, I am free to decide on such cuts and I'd encourage everyone to apply a policy that they believe is fair
Cloudflare and its competitors, as far as I can tell, block arbitrary subgroups of people based on secret criteria. It does not appear to be applied fairly, such as allowing everyone to make the same number of requests per unit time. I'm probably bothered even more because I happen to be among the blocked subgroup regularly (but far from all the time, just little enough to feel the pain)
There's a whole spectrum of gatekeeping on communications with users, from static sites that broadcast their information to anyone, and stores that let you order without even making an account, to organizations that require you install local software to even access data and perform transactions. The latter means 90%+ of your users will hate you for it, and half will walk away, but it's still very common, collectively causing business that do so billions of dollers a year. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2021/02/15/91-of-u... to-install-apps-to-do-business-costing-brands-billions/)
When companies get big enough to have entire departments devoted tasks, those departments will follow the fads that bring them the most prestige, at the cost of the rest of the company. Eventually the company will lose out to newer more efficient businesses that forgo fads in favor of serving customers, and the cycle continues.
I'm just point out how a new fad is hurting businesses, but by no means wish to limit their ability to do so. They just won't be getting my business, nor business from a quickly growing cohort that desires anonymitiy, or even requires it to get around growing local censorship.
Some states are more stringent with their own disability regulations or state constitutions, but no state anywhere in the U.S. has a law that says every visitor to a website has to be treated equally.
Equal protection is indeed not the same as equal treatment. No, it really does say that everyone shall be treated equally so long as the circumstances are equal (gelijke behandeling in gelijke gevallen)
As an aside, I'm curious by how that language in the Dutch constitution actually works in practice. Is it just a game of distinguishing between situations or people to excuse disparate conduct? It seems like it would be unworkable if interpreted literally.
If you don't want to lose money and don't feel confident that you can protect your content with technical measures, best to take your stuff off the internet.
Do not apply laws where they do not apply.