My gut reaction is that it doesn't need a solution; the whole advantage of LN or other 2nd layer solutions is that you can choose who you share a local consensus with; that's what gives it tremendous advantages in privacy, scalability and cost. How you choose that, whether it be an economic reason or other reason (including stupid reasons), is entirely your business.

The globally enforced consensus we have on the base chain is extremely powerful - only miners can even try to block transactions there, and the globality means it'd be pointless unless a huge proportion of miners agreed to censorship and even then .. While that set of properties is great for anti-censorship, it comes at very high cost in time and energy/money.

I'm guessing you see this as more of a problem because of persistent node IDs and a tendency to associate real-world identities with them. I see that as a discussion about routing nodes, but before considering that, consider also that the sender anonymity properties of LN are really pretty good, so just considering an ordinary user, this is most likely not a problem (at least within the system! no crypto magic can stop the problem of merchants demanding ID from their customer ...).

As to routing, yes anonymity is preferable I suppose. But anyway, if it is impaired by such choices to not interact, well someone else will be happy to provide you a route, for a fee. You can imagine fragmentation, but personally I am optimistic that trying to block routing like that will be futile.

No, this have nothing to do with LN. Is just a stupid rant and stupid decision from a stupid operator. He will be isolated soon by all other participants and he will pay himself the price for his own stupid "cancel culture"