The entire reason they are mostly focusing on getting DDoS protection services to drop KF, is it's seen as the most promising approach to kick the website offline. Most other things you need to be on the Internet are either already utilities, or are reasonably possible to maintain yourself or find one provider among thousands. DDoS protection is not like that, you need an unreasonable amount of equipment and money to do it.

If CloudFlare folds, either the website will get knocked to DDoS, or it will find another of the few remaining DDoS protection services, which will be also invariably pressured to drop them, and as smaller players they will have an even greater incentive to fold to avoid a PR disaster. Repeat until they run out of DDoS protection services willing to protect them.

But, as far as I can tell both the owner of KF and its associated companies are located in the US and what they do is technically legal (they've not been convicted as far as I know). So, if they are unable to get on the Internet, that'd make a fantastic argument for regulation of DDoS protection services, which I guess is what CloudFlare is trying to avoid here.

What cake?? They're taking on the responsibilities voluntarily, with no benefits.

What responsibilities they are taking? So far, they try very hard not to follow their own AUP. That’s the opposite of being responsible.

The responsibility of providing service like a utility.

Or we could call it a burden? Let's say burden instead, so the meaning is clearer.

It's definitely not cake. They're actively moving away from the cake.

> So far, they try very hard not to follow their own AUP.

Different services have different AUP. I don't see the issue.