I have several customers on CGNAT and they are not blocked from Cloudflare. Which puts the rest of your point on the back foot.

1. Your users don’t necessarily behave in a way that would earn a bad IP reputation
2. A bad IP reputation does not necessarily contaminate the whole IP pool.
3. Your users don’t necessarily know what CGNAT is, what an IP address is, or that they are exposed to CGNAT collective punishment
4. Your users don’t necessarily report blockades to you. Many non-tor users report hitting the CF blockade and they have no idea why. CF’s error messages are typically deceptively worded to deliberately mislead and point blame on the user themselves. If some sites are blocked but not others, the ISP is not going to be the focus of complaints - if any. They are more likely to complain in social media than they are to the ISP.
5. Most users have been conditioned to accept CAPTCHAs, not report them as abusive or malicious to anyone. But when they do, the website owner gets the complaint not the ISP.

Of course it does. You missed the distinction between excluding a person and a means.

The nuance is lost on your part. When you exclude a person’s only means of access, you exclude the person. When you make public service conditional on agreeing to the terms of a private corporation, you also exclude the people who disagree with the terms. Cloudflare is also non-transparent and never tells those they marginalize why they are being marginalized. The marginalized don’t even necessarily know there is an unblocked means of access or what that means of access entails.

If the user couldn’t access a site from their current location, they could use another one that isn’t blocked.

You don’t know what “block” means. A block is an obstruction. It’s not necessarily absolute. If the road is blocked by a fence, of course you can circumvent the block by climbing the fence. This does not mean the roadblock ceases to exist. Anyone who is either unfit to climb the fence or unwilling remains blocked. The discriminatory denial of access to a public service is a human rights violation. If a black person is denied access to a library, we don’t say: “well they can paint their skin white and then they can get access, thus there is no human rights violation here”.

No strawman rhetoric here, just calling it out to be a muted point.

It’s a strawman because you misrepresented the original claim by leaving out critical details. Had you quoted the claim it would not have been a strawman. Or if you had been wise enough to know which details are too critical in the thesis for omission, you would not have created a strawman. But it’s clear that your goal was simply to smear the article so the strawman was obviously intentional.

And on that point I think you are in the extreme.

When I load images it will sucks dry my limited monthly bandwidth credit. An unlimited connection would cost me more than triple the fees. And yet you call it “extremist” to be frugal & pro-environment/socially responsible rather than wastefully indulgent. This tendency to look to smear people who are either socially responsible or not corporate pushovers is apparently why you have this pro-repressive tech giant attitude that doesn’t mind marginalizing people.