Where did you address them? You just claim that
almost every Lemmy instance is the same, many significantly worse in terms of how authoritarian they are
Without any explanation for why that would be the case whereas I have not have at all had the same experience. Therefore, I don't see how it relates to federated social media at all.
Furthermore, you just state that
some of us just want a place with zero bans and which unless you break the law with your speech, zero bans and moderation
And to just "block them and move on". Honestly, I don't want my time using social media to be spent having to personally block multiple accounts (by people who will probably make more accounts) because they're racists, misogynists, foreign bot farms, etc. Furthermore, I don't want my content and my comments to be used, knowingly or otherwise, to prop up comment sections and threads that are spreading disinformation and bigotry.
If you want that, that's fine. Go to one of those places. But from what I've seen, they are usually where nazis end up congregating, which is one reason why I (and at least some other people) prefer to avoid them.
Combined with your earlier comments, this seems like saying that moderators only moved to Lemmy because they wanted more power which seems almost revisionist. Moderating is a shitty job, a lot of people do it just because they care about their online communities, and many moderators moved from Reddit to Lemmy specifically because they cared about their communities and how what Reddit was doing was ruining them.
So, what is your alternative? We should force people to be on platforms that they don't want and have to spend all day blocking people who thrives on antagonizing them? You can just go on those other instances, you don't have to interact with the ones that are, in your words, so authoritarian.
Why wouldn't they create more accounts to get around the blocks? Not to mention other reasons for making more accounts, for example making it seem like your opinion has more widespread support than it actually does.
And now it sounds like you ran out of things to say, so the only thing left is to try and discredit my character. I am fine with people having different opinions than I do, that's how the world works, but it sounds to me like you're suggesting that discussing income tax rates is the same as disagreeing with someone about whether genocide is acceptable or not. They're not the same thing. Having good-faith discourse and pushing disinformation are not the same thing.
It should be on the onus of the person being a dick to stop being a dick to get to interact with others in their communities, not for the people who aren't being dicks to spend a bunch of their time and energy having to filter out all the dicks. If you disagree with that, you can whenever you want, go to a different community where people have the same opinion as you, but saying that people only want moderation because they can't handle someone else's opinion without "losing their minds" sounds disingenuous at best.