If it wasn't already, you aren't paying attention.
Cloudflare is quite literally the largest bulletproof hosting provider for bad actors on the internet, and unless you know someone at the company personally takedowns are like pulling teeth.
Cloudflare is quite literally the largest bulletproof hosting provider for bad actors on the internet, and unless you know someone at the company personally takedowns are like pulling teeth.
If your complaint is that the host should be the only one to see the full report then your point doesn't stand since Josh pays to have his own ASN so he can personally handle reports for it.
If your point is that only Cloudflare should have the name I don't think it counts as a valid DMCA takedown since it's not like you have a signed document from the copyright holder or someone on their behalf.
The problem is what they do is legal, beneficial (because we have a lot of bad people) but not without downsides (again, because it helps some (or the same) bad people).
Since there's no easy way to sort out people and content it's hard to fault them for not doing so.
If what they were doing were 100% bad then it would be politically straightforward to ban it. But we already ban those things.
So what's needed is better systems, models, rules, processes that help with one of the underlying problems (eg. we need to either reduce the number of bad people or we need to get better at sorting content), then it again becomes politically simple to pressure providers to actually do better.
(One of the possible things that could be improved is a better way to do incremental changes. Currently CF can drop clients once, so they are not going take this lightly. If there were other ways to signal to clients that they are doing something problematic that would incentivize CF to utilize that incremental tool more.)
How they handle takedowns is important in its own way but completely unrelated.