Remember #NetNeutrality, ISPs being common carriers and them not meddling with the pages users want to see? This is similar.
Under a "remote neutral" approach each #fediverse instance leaves the tight opinionated moderation policies to their own users users and the content their users generate or share with the aim of running a safe and welcoming instance for their members that's safe to federate with.
However, remote content is only moderated whenever there is a report and only blocked if it's straight out illegal to host / cache or constitute unsolicited spam/harassment. Otherwise objectionable remote content is limited at most and users can block it if they want.
By limiting remote content at most (unless illegal) I protect our users while also avoiding overzealous domain blocks which can be problematic as we've seen over and over again.
If the #fediverse is split on whether project A is good or bad, has good intentions but bad execution or good execution but bad intentions... it doesn't matter too much. There is no need for us to position ourselves or try to learn about a new controversy that has recently popped up.
If it could impact the user experience by appearing in our federated timeline, we'll limit them but we avoid jumping the gun or causing irreversible damage by avoiding remote blocks whenever possible unless this remote content is evidently illegal to host / cache or constitutes spam / harassment.
I hope this exemplifies a little the concept of #RemoteNeutrality, while focusing moderation on local users and content.