alt Hacker NewsI'm not saying it is. I think there's a pretty broad agreement that those sites are bad, and less of them is good.
It's much less obvious that we want private corporations (or governments) picking and choosing which sites are good or bad. And from Cloudflare's position, a policy of "we don't police content" is more defensible than "we don't police content, except of this one in particular". These definitely aren't the only two horrible, racist websites Cloudflare has hosted.
IIRC (and take this memory with a grain of salt), one thing that angered eastdakota about Stormfront was that they kept saying something like "Cloudflare hasn't kicked us off, so they're okay with us" or something like that. And obviously that doesn't hold water, unless Cloudflare has chosen to kick of some sites, it lends some credence to the remaining ones.
I'm undecided where I stand on it. I'd like them to take actions like this in a principled way. (And I'm happy to accept that there's no clear line to draw, nor that it can be enforced with 100% accuracy, but if you're drawing a line, do it thoughtfully and broadcast it so you know ahead of time if you're in their gray area.)
I think most people do want governments picking and choosing. Governments have accountability through elections and roughly represent what the population wants. Corporations have skewed ideas of good and bad that aren't usually very representative. Government blocking might be a problem for Americans with more puritanical ideologies because they also have the freedom of speech in the constitution but most other countries aren't encumbered like that and many do block all sorts of morally deviant content.