I (and other actually competent devs I’ve talked to about it) have always gone straight to official documentation first.

This is silly posturing. Anyone that is troubleshooting a problem tends to start by googling the error message, and more often than not Google will return SO hits, not official documentation.

I really don’t know what you are aiming for…

If you need anyone to spell it out to you, you are mindlessly complaining about programming.dev adopting anti-abuse services from a service provider. When lightly pressed on the topic, you fail to present a single problem of doing that or even a single coherent argument against it.

In short, you failed to point out any problem involving or any reason to replace an anti-abuse system. And yet you argue the service should be replaced.

Is "why" such an insurmountable challenge?

OK, if there is a monopolistic instance between you and the rest of the world that decides who can reach you

It's the site owners who are rolling out anti-abuse systems. They picked a vendor to meet their needs. I don't think Cloudflare put a gun to their heads to force them to onboard their services. Do you?

Potential threads from this are (but not limited to):

You mean "hypothetical", not "potential".

Meaning, they are imaginary scenarios, and they represent the worst case you could think of.

You need to ask site owners what is their policy for these hypothetical scenarios you invented. On a technical side, removing anti-abuse protection is all it takes to fix it. This means that no action is required to address any of your hypothetical concerns.

You’re asking for specifics on their concerns while not providing the specifics that were already in place in your claim here.

If you want to change something, the very least that's expected of you is that the change actually fixes something.

If you can't even put together a description of exactly what's broken, obviously you can't tell if your proposal is even able to fix anything.

And may I point out the fact that this very discussion starts by admitting that alternatives are not effective?

Change for the sake of change is a pointless endeavour. Moreso if it comes from mindless militancy.

The ‘browser incompatibility’ is what’s written on the fallback page.

No. The page clearly says "Incompatible browser extension or network configuration".

It then lists a number of troubleshooting steps to get the page to work.

The question was about the problem that migration from Cloudflare would solve and I provided one particular problem.

I don't think so. Site maintainers are expecting your browser to run the scripts to detect and prevent abuse, and you are going way out of your way to not run them. You are not describing a problem.

Exactly that, Cloudflare complains about extensions.

What you are describing is not browser incompatibility. It's default fallback page that Cloudflare shows when it fails to run its javascript code.

Site owners such as programming.dev maintainers purposely onboarded Cloudflare to run those scripts, as that's how their anti-abuse system works.

I read, and then I posted. Is there anything in my reply that I can explain to you?

Are you sure this is a Cloudflare issue?

For shits and giggles I logged into programming.dev with Firefox Focus, and suffice to say I'm posting this with that browser.

I also did some tweaking and I did noticed that it I configure Firefox Focus to strip all types of tracking (akin to NoScript) then Cloudflare complains about extensions.

Cloudflare gives its 522 error

This means Cloudflare is forwarding the request but the origin server times out. Meaning, it's the origin server that is unable to handle the IPv6 request.

https://developers.cloudflare.com/support/troubleshooting/http-status-codes/cloudflare-5xx-errors/error-522/

I use Firefox Focus on my mobile and I can’t enter sites with CloudFlare because it says my browser is incompatible.

I also use Firefox Focus and I never experienced that issue at all. Are you sure this is a Cloudflare issue?

Also, site owners are purposely using Cloudflare to protect themselves from abnormal traffic. If site owners are the ones paying Cloudflare to lift these barriers, why do you interpret this issue as a problem created by Cloudflare?

Personally, my local Cloudflare seems to have some problem with IPv6 and many sites won’t load.

Some global ISPs still struggle with IPv6. I recall that until somewhat recently Vodafone didn't supported it at all. Are you sure this is a Cloudflare issue?

What problem would be solved by this hypothetical migration?