Why establish a false dichotomy? One can be just as mad about them abusing their position to attack free speech in a censorious way, as one is about their other efforts to create a monopoly over a large swathe of internet traffic.
I get it, nobody wants to defend badthink, but it's a hell of a lot easier philosophically to defend all political speech regardless of content than it is to try to pick and choose and make some moral case.
Set aside the free speech stuff which involves groups inciting violence - while we can agree that it's bad, deciding what to do will inevitably lead to wildly divergent ideas.
Cloudflare says that it's "free speech" for their customers to claim to be Adobe offering a "Flash Updater", or for their customers to claim to be Bank of America.
That is how evil Cloudflare is - they allow clear and unambiguous crime for pennies.
I get it, nobody wants to defend badthink, but it's a hell of a lot easier philosophically to defend all political speech regardless of content than it is to try to pick and choose and make some moral case.