Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your response assumes that without the federal government doing something, nobody will do it, but that misses the fact that we have 50 state governments and DC perfectly capable of regulating themselves. Past that, local elections already matter more in one's day to day life than federal elections, and those votes will have even more value as the role of the states grow.
It doesn't assume that - it assumes that if it's bad when the federal government gets involved with something, it's equally bad when the state government gets involved. For instance, this thread is about a state pursuing large tech companies on what can be described as free speech violations. But I've never seen anyone argue that it's okay for a state government to ban free speech, but it's not okay for the federal g…
Which in my opinion is a broadly false assumption, and ignores the very point of a federal republic, which is federalism. People in different states have different cultures, different norms, different geographies, different natural resources, different pastimes, different porn habits, different cuisines, etc.
State legislatures are closer to their voting populace than federal legislatures, and thus, people's interests can be more directly reflected by voting more locally.
I agree that a state trampling on your rights is functionally no better than if a federal government does so, but you have more recourse against a state government doing so, more opportunities for remedy, and more ways in which to steer the ship right where those violations are regular.