In the personal/SMB spaces, you're right. Of course, enterprise remains their cash cow, where they compete with the big boys (akamai, incapsula, etc.).
> Neither site broke any US laws, but they were both controversial.
This is basically why so many are bothered by CloudFlare's decision. Who decides what's controversial? We've seen many examples in the past of normal views being "controversial".
CloudFlare, in this case.
Yes, but cloudflare is not denying a job to any of those people. Not to mention there are certainly threats of violence on those sites, which are technically illegal. That's grounds enough to take the site down.
I argued above that cloudflare's actions were concerning, but at the end of the day, it's cloudflare's network. Do you really want the state compelling by force a firm to carry the traffic of any one? I don't, and find it the only option more concerning than a firm arbitrarily refusing to do business.
I personally dislike the actions of cloudflare in this case, and am allowed to criticize them. However, I don't think it makes sense to have the state enforce my criticism via compulsion.