There's no censorship.
You will be able to send value to anyone on the network, at any time, without asking permission. That's the censorship resistance that was promised.
Wizard .jpegs and worse were never part of the equation.
Discussion
You can’t have permission to send value without permission to use blockspace however the protocol allows. Filtering by content instead of fees is subjective gatekeeping.
Today it’s wizard jpegs. Tomorrow it’s sanctioned addresses or capital controls. Every payment network eventually filters undesirable transactions.
Bitcoin’s promise was pay the fee, get the blockspace. High fees already filter inefficient uses. Adding human judgment breaks the neutrality that makes Bitcoin work. Either blockspace is neutral or it isn’t. There’s no middle ground.
What are you talking about? The filters are already there and have been there for a decade plus. The new Core people are trying to remove the filters. To change the rules of the game.
Bitcoin is a monetary network from inception. The protocol only allows inscriptions because Rodarmor found a way to exploit a bug in Taproot.
In conclusion:
Taproot had years of review. This wasn’t a bug, or it would’ve been fixed immediately. Ordinals pay full fees. The old OP_RETURN limits were for actual spam when blockspace was cheap. Not the same thing.
You want to filter paid transactions because you don’t like the use case. That’s literally the gatekeeping Bitcoin was built to prevent. The fee market already handles this. Your aesthetic preferences don’t.
People feared to introduce unintended consequences with Taproot and SegWit.
They have been right. But what if those unintended consequences have been intended consequences by Core devs via their backers. The compromise has been going on for far longer than many here might admit.
Most have not even been here in 2014 when Mastercard and a couple of conglomerate Bilderbergers founded Blockstream.
You say that you can't have permission to send value without permission to use blockspace however the protocol allows. Has anyone disagreed with this? It seems to me that people have only been complaining about what blockspace use-cases the protocol allows, not about the fact that the wrong sort of people have permission to send value.