I don't know. If I claimed to uphold the sacred tenets of free speech and expression I probably wouldn't want to be associated with a website that has a profound chilling effect on free speech and expression.
Is hate and ridicule expressed publically and unchallenged not just a DDoS against a group of people's right to expression?
When it's evident that some speech can quell other speech, which speech do we choose?
Cloudflare say "both" by taking money from the oppressor and giving it to the oppressed. I'd suggest this is- while something of a poetic justice- wholly insufficient and that Cloudflare should exercise the morals they claim to possess.
"Is hate and ridicule expressed publically and unchallenged not just a DDoS against a group of people's right to expression?"
The way I see it, the internet has enabled entirely new categories of negative behavior, using that term as a wide umbrella.
Half the things people say on Twitter, if you'd say them to someone's face in a bar, would make you wake up in the hospital. On the internet though, you can get away with it. Worse, you can organize a large amount of people to target an individual, organization, group of people, etc. This capability is near-impossible in the physical world.
These new ways are seized by hysterical activists on both extreme ends of the political spectrum and over time further normalized into the mainstream. These people feed on polarization and absolutely cannot be trusted to have the power to shut down infrastructure.
Is hate and ridicule expressed publically and unchallenged not just a DDoS against a group of people's right to expression?
When it's evident that some speech can quell other speech, which speech do we choose?
Cloudflare say "both" by taking money from the oppressor and giving it to the oppressed. I'd suggest this is- while something of a poetic justice- wholly insufficient and that Cloudflare should exercise the morals they claim to possess.