> Do I want to see booters online? Of course not. > But if CloudFlare were to shut them down without due process, that would damage their credibility - to the point where I would feel uncomfortable doing business with them.

The problem with this stance is it appears to be a conflict of interest. The easier it is to access a booter site, the more people who need Cloudflare's services.

I'm not saying that is the reason they do it. I'm just saying that is a conflict of interest that can really only be resolved by removing clearly labeled booter sites.

> Think also from the customer standpoint: people who need DDoS protection are people who are having their site shutdown without due process (by criminals who launch DoS attacks). When the company you hire to fix the problem becomes part of the problem, it's not good - and they would be part of the problem if they offered a 'send us an email and we shut down our users' denial of service attack vector.

Hosting booters makes them part of the problem is the flaw in that logic.