I recommend keeping the focus on the leaders when they affect the stance that
the best evidence and reasoning proves they're right with 12 or so distinctive
rules, even moreso if they cause anyone to be divided from anyone close to them,
hurt or killed.
The focus for the followers about that seems to be that the leaders are also
distinctive with especially strong disfellowshipping rules, also used for those
12 or so rules, which can cause followers to avoid those people and articles
critical of those efforts at exclusiveness.
That said, I have noticed some dishonestly among followers I otherwise liked.
They came by for a couple of years during which I double-checked the leaders'
claims of exclusiveness at the library. I waited so long to bring it up because
I liked them and suspected they might not come around anymore if I told them
what I found. But after it grew to be a small library of expose books and
Xeroxes, I took a chance.
I didn't know much about the JWs leaders' harsh shunning rules then--I just
thought a few of these followers popped their membranes. Now that I look back
at it, I guess there might have been some fibbing (theocratic warfare?).
One argued from the Xerox of Apology 21 by Tertullian I handed him that it
showed Tertullian taught a created Jesus as the "Should You Believe in the
Trinity?" tract left him to think was the JWs leaders' stance. I wish I had
that on tape. Rod Serling could have done the introduction to that.
This led to a meeting with one that was meant to decide if they keep seeing
me or not who, to be consistent with his Acts 15 stance of an absolute ban of
taking in blood, defended an absolute ban of taking in things offered to idols.
I tried to explain that that isn't either the JWs leaders' stance
- (don't eat about half of animal blood or medically use whole or major blood
fractions of human blood, etc., and don't eat "things offered" unless far enough away from idol
ceremonies where they have an idolatrous significance--exactly how many feet
away, they don't specify)
- or the mainstream stance (don't eat either one in certain circumstances,
notably around Jewish law followers who didn't eat either one at all or
associate with those that did).
That's the conservative Jewish stance (don't eat either one at all).
So, among other similar things, they didn't come around anymore because I'm not Jewish.