The pro-federation camp has also repeatedly tried to dishonestly frame the possibility of an admin making an instance block decision with which their users disagree as an example of tyranny.
I think the most obvious response to this line of argument is to point out that the people making it are always using instances which block other instances. They will often say something like "blocking instances just takes choices away from users!" Essentially, they are trying to shift the discussion away from the merits of threads itself, and towards an abstract philosophical argument about blocking in general.
But if they were really against blocking instances at all, they coudl use an instance that doesn't block anyone or anything. And yet, they (usually) don't. That fact indicates that their desire to federate with threads.net isn't based on an abstract opposition to blocking, but based on something about threads.net in particular.
And that's where the conversation should be: why does threads.net deserve preferential treatment that wouldn't be afforded to poa.st or spinster.xyz?
Binder
onepict
fatboy