[quanticle]

>The big unanswered question is how they'll manage to stay good given the obvious incentive of abusing this setup.

Why do you think they're still "good"? CloudFlare has chosen to abandon sites that held free speech (abhorrent speech, but still free speech) while still protecting forums upon which credit cards and methamphetamine were listed for sale on the front page.

To me, that's not a sign of a "good" actor.

[waboremo]

Free speech doesn't exist within the context of a privately held website.

[marcellus23]

Free speech is an ideal, not just an amendment.

[riffraff]

but a private entity (person or corp) does not have any obligation to protect ideas they find abhorrent to be considered on the side of "good".

[iceburgcrm]

That's the point. They find free speech abhorrent but consider selling dangerous drugs to be acceptable.

So many people find them abhorrent because they represent different values.

Legally no one has any obligations here.

[quanticle]

Agreed, but it's a strange value system that says, "Dealing meth and stolen credit cards is okay, but having a web forum that makes fun of people is not."