Firstly, let me state here that I don't like Craig Write on a personal level. I find him crude, rude obnoxious and abrasive. I also think he may be even a borderline sociopath. The trouble is his personal failings don't matter as whenever I hear him, I'm persuaded by his arguments. From what I hear, his main talking points are:

• Real value is derived from adoption and use.
• There are legal and regulatory hurdles with tinkering with the original protocol. Only SV is tightly aligned with the original protocol.
• We really need to standardise on on protocol for business adoption to increase. If that is what we want, stop treating crypto like a fun programming game and stop futzing with the protocol, build on it.
• Big (huge) blocks are not a problem. And increasing the block size was always in the original whitepaper.

Developing the idea of big blocks not being a problem. I've not heard a compelling case for keeping the block size low. The worry, I think is centralisation, both from the users and the miners point of view. From a miners point of view, I believe that the main driver in centralisation is the difficulty of making a block, not it's size. Only people who can afford beefy rigs can mine, and even then, they still need to centralise around one pool, or another. From a users' perspective, the concern is big blocks will price out regular users from being a full node. I'm unconvinced that being a full node gives you any more control than that of a spectator. Only minors have the power. As long as I can control my private keys (this is essential), and that they follow an open standard, who cares who transmits my transactions.