Which is the most frustrating thing about this document, because CloudFlare is ostensibly explaining why their AUP for hosting services is different from their

Which is the most frustrating thing about this document, because CloudFlare is ostensibly explaining why their AUP for hosting services is different from their AUP for security services; but instead of talking about the points of their AUP, they talk about how they don't want to terminate security services just because they feel the content is "immoral or disgusting" or "reprehensible". They are adopting the same strawman that critics of "cancel culture" believe exists: they are answering the question of "Why don't you cancel security services to people whose content is 'immoral or disgusting' or 'reprehensible'?" But that's not the relevant question. One presumes Kiwi Farms would violate CloudFlare's Hosting AUP not because they're "immoral or disgusting" or "reprehensible" either (because those aren't stated violations of the hosting AUP) but because it "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." So the question they should be answering, for each of the AUP violations they prohibit in their Hosting AUP, is why they allow these activities for services protected by their security services: * Do you, or why do you allow security service subscribers to distribute material that violates intellectual property rights? * Do you, or why do you protect security service subscribers' ability to publish defamatory content? * Do you, or why do you protect security service subscribers' ability to distribute malware and control botnets? And if it turns out you don't allow them to do that, then why would you make a special exception for the last plank of your hosting AUP: * Do you, or why do you protect security service subscribers' ability to distribute 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? Those are the activities in question, not whether something is "immoral or disgusting" or "reprehensible". So why the misdirection? Why not answer why you think it's important to provide security services specifically to people that incites harassment to people? In my opinion, it's because they are overcorrecting and actually favoring groups like Kiwi Farms exactly because they're repugnant and reprehensible, and giving them a special bye that they wouldn't to, say, a revenge porn site. And that's participating and aiding in the targeting of Kiwi Farms' victims.