They are not openly talking about blacklisting anymore, but there is certainly a big reaction from other people about initial news, and bitcointalk forum is included.
They barely openly talked about it even when they announced it. It's not really surprising why - obviously they don't want a lot of publicity around the fact that a so called "privacy wallet" is now anti-privacy and pro-censorship.
I don't know what's the real truth behind this story but let's give them benefit of the doubt, until (or if) we see moving into wrong direction.
They've been moving in the wrong direction solidly since this announcement. They have doubled down on a lot of things and continued to attack others to such an extent that I cannot believe it is all just some clever ruse.
Listening to one of their developers speaking I am sure there are people now actively working on creating alternative coordinators with different jurisdiction.
Well, they've had loads of time to do it, and apparently no pressure to implement blacklisting. So why not launch an alternative coordinator first, change it the default, and then announce blacklisting on zkSNACKs? Makes no sense.