The only reason why they're not constantly called out by serious infosec folk for their scam is because they hire guys also involved in DefCon/BlackHat planning (try to sneak a hostile talk against Cloudflare past REDACTED who btw is also advising Mr. Robot). It's lobbying at its finest.
EDIT:  redacted name since there is more than one, please duckduckgo by yourself.
* Longtime repeat speaker at Black Hat
* Repeat review board member (including this year's), and
* Extreme skeptic of Cloudflare's
I do not believe this is true. If you have a talk that is on topic for Black Hat and is harmful to Cloudflare, you'll get accepted. There's no one person who screens Black Hat talks; it's a panel of people, with several of the longstanding members of that panel (I'm not one of those) being more or less unimpeachable (Mark Dowd, Chris Eagle, Alex Sotirov, Dino Dai Zovi). None of these people are in the tank for Cloudflare. In fact: for most of the review board, none of them give a shit about Cloudflare.
The process isn't perfectly transparent! But it's such that if you submitted a talk, and it got shitcanned before reviewers even saw it, and you made a stink about it on Twitter, people would notice.
I generally agree with your assessment of Cloudflare as a threat to the Internet, for what it's worth. I just don't think you're right that they've gamed Black Hat.
I can see that you are not happy with what they provide. Luckily theirs service is not forced on you. Neither do you have to use it, nor visit server that use it.