Remote attestation is the true enemy of your freedom. The power of the authoritarian corporatocracy to force you to use only the (entire) systems they control. It's worth reading https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html again just to see how prescient Stallman was.
RA is a technology that has its fair use, and can be desired for other systems, like in Linux. With a pure RA system your services can decide to trust or not those devices on your network that can be compromised, and report to other devices that there is something suspicious.
As anything, this can be used properly to increase the security of your edge architecture, or wrongly to limit the users actions.
Let me put another example. With RA I should be able to authorize validated systems in my R&D VPN. If you are using your own laptop with the company certificate, and the verifier tag the systems as "unknown" or "unhealthy", it will not allow the access to the internal network, but sure you can still use your laptop for anything else. This, IMHO, is a fair use of this technology.
Because god forbid you have control of your own PC?
Of course, the system for it is rudimentary, and puts a disproportionate amount of control in the hands of providers. And that works very well for them too.
Choosing a party is not like choosing an OS for your PC, though. Choosing the OS would be like choosing the political system - and recognizing the incredible privilege I have by being born into a democracy, I very much wouldn't like other people to change it.
Going further into democracy, while you might put an X on a paper sometimes, still forbids a very high number of actions. I'd liken it to having the power of choosing between Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store for your phone. Which, getting back to the point, is safer for the users than installing any third party software. Like how in a well functioning democracy, I'm forbidden to do a great many things, but also I can feel safe in the thought that others have the same restrictions too.
At least that's how I managed to understand your comment to the best of my abilities, so hopefully I'm missing something. Though if there is such a something, the point did not get across successfully.
This makes sense to entities providing a service, and also for many who doesn't mind not having control over their something, which is, I think, very similar to how we don't really have control over a great many of things. This is the point I wanted to get across to the original commenter, who protested "god forbid you have control of your own PC?".
iPhone users are safer from malware, PC users are safer from governments and Apple controlling what they can do on their computer.
Never-ending balance between safety and freedom.
The computer that requires a physical switch to disable secure boot is a good compromise (see many Chromebooks)