This is setting aside the mechanism of the censorship -- removing DDOS protection versus a harassment campaign -- the social or other merit or the speech censored, etc.
Kiwi Farms is a particular clear case to illustrate this point.
No, that we're dealing with cloudflare, with DDoS protection, is the point here. If you want to run a forum where you ban speech that you feel silences people, that's great, but if you want to deny DDoS protection to other forums that don't have this rule, or don't enforce it to your satisfaction, that's very different.
> This is setting aside the mechanism of the censorship -- removing DDOS protection versus a harassment campaign
No we really can't set this aside. Removing DDoS protection directly makes it impossible to run any unpopular website. "Harassment campaign" is a vague term, that can be used (and arguably in this case is used) for any kind of persistent criticism, ridicule, outrage, doxxing - I see harassment campaigns on twitter every day.
https://slate.com/technology/2022/09/kiwi-farms-cloudlfare-a...
The point is that if you're using your speech to silence people, not by disproving their arguments but through terror and the destruction of their reputation and social network, when you silence people by lying about them, your speech is a threat to free speech.
By protecting sites whose purpose is to silence particular individuals through lies and threats you are reducing free speech. This is a case where you have to choose which speech to protect. They are in conflict. And the site you might defend is not the one making a good faith use of the freedom you wish to protect.