Your argument boils down to trivialising the imposition to the victim not being able to use a service. How do you justify the presumption that it's trivial? What if I need the service to access health care, a bank account, education, welfare etc? What if there aren't alternatives? And as victims of discrimination everywhere will say, why should I have to sacrifice things even if you think they are trivial, just because I have a preference?
The real argument should be around what is the legitimate need for attestation. Where there is a genuine need then a discussion could be had. For example, if it will threaten the bank's security or liabilities (not mine) then its reasonable for them to at least evaluate the cost of me not providing that attestation and building it into their estimate of the cost of transacting with me (even up to the point of not doing business with me). That doesn't seem to be the discussion people want to have though.
That we aren't yet in a computational dystopia is proof that enough that the privation of it has kept computing safe from getting so locked in that nobody can compete or navigate the barriers to entry.
As soon as we start seeing remote attestation fetting implemented, that's gone. Period.