it's quite possible we'll see more and more node runners implement the Ordisrespectors patch. This way, the problem can be rectified, without involving the miners.

if a State actor offered mining pools large amounts of fiat to mine empty blocks, would you consider this reasonable and objective?

if not, what's the difference between this scenario, and a State actor offering mining pools large amounts of fiat to fill blocks full of jpegs?

Functionally speaking, both are a censorship attack on Bitcoin.

You call it censorship because you disagree with the content of those transactions, which is subjective. Some peeps don't disagree.

Also, ordinals aside, some rich actor could spam Bitcoin without jpegs. Just move sats back and forth between their wallets, paying high fees to block everyone else. Is that spam? Should you block these transactions? I see them as valid. And we need better ways to deal with that situation than filtering whatever the miner sees as spam.