https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
The truth is not always somewhere in the middle. If one group wants to serve water and another wants to serve cyanide, the right answer is not to mix the two, it's to serve water and to end the careers of the people who wanted to serve cyanide.
I am not arguing for a middle ground, I argue for addressing the issues directly instead of being maximalist in any way.
You are dismissing things as "maximalist", which is not conducive to treating certain things as sacrosanct.
For example: end-to-end encryption is sacrosanct, and must not be broken, ever. If you want access, your only option should be to serve one of the ends a warrant. That's not "maximalist", that's holding to a principle.