It is not "less clear" how this applies to Kiwifarms. Their TOS says they "may" remove content that:
"Is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals, or seeks to defraud the public."
Kiwifarms doxxing and swatting is documented six ways from Sunday, and it's hardly just keffals.
To be perfectly clear about my own bias: I think Kiwifarms is among the worst Web sites on the Internet, I think it's caused immeasurable harm, and I don't want it to exist.
However, I am (probably) talking to people who aren't convinced of this as well as people like you and I, and I also strongly understand the desire to form general principles above and beyond a single person making decisions, so I wanted to come at it from a relatively neutral direction.
I think that you have to take responsibility when your actions (doxing) result in a higher probability of other actions (swatting). The exact degree of responsibility varies.
You believe the same thing. Cloudflare dropping Kiwifarms wouldn’t directly result in Kiwifarms going dark; it’s just a highly predictable outcome. If you don’t think a company is responsible for anything but their direct actions, the argument for providing service to Kiwifarms becomes much weaker.
"Is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals, or seeks to defraud the public."
Kiwifarms doxxing and swatting is documented six ways from Sunday, and it's hardly just keffals.