[nrook]

My position is that Cloudflare's hosting of websites and forums where attackers coordinate and organize (what you refer to as "websites [I] do not like") contributes to an Internet environment in which Cloudflare's own tools are more necessary. I am not saying that the attacks themselves are sent from servers controlled by Cloudflare.

[joshenders]

If I understand your position correctly, you’re advocating for a world where Cloudflare is the arbtrar of ethics, morality, and legality on the Internet? I think I’d rather they just continue to provide service for sites I disagree with? Thanks.

[fragmede]

They can host all the political dubious sites they want, but when they sell a service that protects from what they’re hosting (booster services where they offer DDoS for sale sites), it starts to look an awful lot like a protection racket.

That’s a nice website you’ve got there. It would be a shame if someone DDoS’d it. Hey btw, I sell DDoS protection services. Gee, isn’t that just so convenient!

[jimhi]

Run a website with decent traffic for a few years and watch the script kiddies come out asking for bitcoin in exchange for turning off their botnet.

Not a racket when you see how common it was before Cloudflare.