They didn't say it was blocked using this proposal. Just that it was expedited through website blocking infrastructure that was put in place for other purposes.
P1. Infra A exists.
P2. Infra A has been abused.
C1. If we build infra A, it can be abused.
P3. Abuse is bad.
P4. This proposal proposes that we build infra A.
P5. A proposal to build something that can be abused is bad.
C2. A proposal to build infra A is bad.
That's all fine. It's all fine, except P1 still stands even at the time we reach C2. The infrastructure already exists. So the argument sounds funny. Not unsound, but somewhat unconvincing.
It's a much better argument for the proposition that we should dismantle the infrastructure, than that we shouldn't make additional legitimate use of the infrastructure.
