From a policy perspective I find it extremely problematic to say that CloudFlare is an essential part of modern free speech. If we say that free speech is shout

From a policy perspective I find it extremely problematic to say that CloudFlare is an essential part of modern free speech. If we say that free speech is shouting from a publicly funded street corner, that's one thing. But it's quite another to say that free speech requires expensive engineers, infrastructure, and energy expenditure, all funded by an American business. If we want public squares, why then do we not pay for it with public money? Furthermore, is it not incredibly problematic that private companies are such an important pillar of free speech in an international context? Is CloudFlare essential for German free speech? And most importantly, what about the freedom of association as a moral principle? How does an individual's freedom to speak weigh against another's capacity to say "leave me alone?" At the extreme, we might see that in a small town, if enough people disassociate from you then freedom of speech is no longer the top issue. The top issue becomes whether you can even live. So which of these ideal rights are most weighty, and how ought they interact with other rights? What determines that freedom of association is subordinate to the freedom of speech in an X society? On a more technical question, what is stopping Kiwi Farms from gathering on the many private forums which exist around the world? There's 4chan, Reddit, TruthSocial, or Facebook. CloudFlare was not a host in this context, it was a DDOS protection service, which is indirectly a wallet protection service. Who will be DDOS'ing Facebook's wallet?