Maybe their point is just privatisation or something.
For example a dns provider like cloudfare just could artificially make latency costs for servers that don't agree with something cloudfare does bigger, which would result in them being less likely to be displayed in a search result because a search engine would have IP adresses faster from other servers. This obviously depends on if a search engine makes dns requests or just provides hostnames for the end user.
But everybody is also moving into their castle. Many for free.
They are not allowed to let people do that unless they have an argument that, somehow, this makes money for the owners of Cloudflare. Maybe that's in the form of good publicity. Maybe they're hoping to set up some tollbooths at the castle gate, once enough people are inside and the other options have withered for lack of customers.
That suggests they're less likely to try to frantically monitize in a way that risks killing their brand's reputation. Maybe they'll stay nice indefinitely.
My negative experiences as an end user take priority over any positive experience told to me by a third party in a usage case that doesn't apply to me.
Your experience as an end user is only available because cloudflare exists. That's why your end user opinion doesn't matter, because bad actors are constantly trying to ruin the internet and cloudflare is the gatekeeper. As a server owner I need security at the door to keep our illegal activity. Your opinion of "I don't like security at the door" is dually noted and immediately thrown away.