The "tech hypochondria" is downstream of tech's particularly warped understanding of free speech: i.e. "censorship is when packet loss".
If you define censorship as packet loss, then anything that drops packets is inherently evil, and your business (which ultimately boils down to sending packets along) is inherently good. Ergo anything you do is good and anything that questions or checks your power is evil.
This understanding of free speech didn't evolve in a vaccum, though. It was a response to the "copyright hypochondria" of the publishing industry outfits that have been insisting that "censorship is when free movies". One of the most irritating tenets of copyright maximalism is the idea that copyright somehow backstops free speech, because having an economic incentive to publish is supposed to make politicians think twice[0] about stupid censorship bullshit?
So we have two industries here that have both psyopped themselves into thinking their profit margins are a moral good, unwilling to compromise in any way that would allow legal websites to remain online. Or at least I'm assuming both sides are unwilling to compromise, because La Liga isn't saying anything, and Cloudflare is going to the public rather than the actual courts imposing this blocking order.
[0] The logic doesn't logic here, this is the same kind of thinking that gave us "capitalism has won" in the 1990s and "military alliances will make war impossible" a century prior. Politicians are ultimately polite brokers of violence, and economics is a tool they impose upon us to make us do things in lieu of guns to head. Not the other way around. Politicians will happily censor economically valuable art all day long.
I'm tempted to say "the master's tools can't destroy the master's house", but that saying is complete bullshit for different reasons.