As a lowly plebs I'm trying my best to see both sides of this debate over the last few days. This is what I have gathered.

On one side there are genuine attempts to communicate this potential existential threat to Bitcoin with concise and easily digestible explanation for both technical and non-technical plebs. There are sensible questions and discussions in its threads.

On the other side appears to be silence on this issue at first, until the discussions in the community began gathering more attention. Most of the explanations are either very technical and/or conveluded for the average non technical plebs to follow. Or overly simplistic, such as "Filters doesn't work, so we should just remove it". Or "It's not that big of a deal". Or "It's censorship". Sure censorship is a valid point, but even the constitution is not absolute. The threads seem to be full of monkey JPEGs and "bros".

If there are no obvious benefits to this update then why take such an unnecessary risk? We're talking about removing a feature and not adding one. Is Bitcoin broken without removing this?

Why try to avoid scrutiny? Why silence people? Isn't ironic that on one hand they want to eliminate censorship and on the other they're welding it? While us plebs are greatly appreciative of all the work that core has contributed to Bitcoin, but this just seems very suspicious to me. I suspect core or at least some influential members of core are complimised.

If I wanted to attack Bitcoin, this is precisely what I would do. Bitcoin cannot be attacked overtly anymore. It still vulnerable to covert attacks? Does open sats have a protocol to deal with something like this? We haven't won yet, the war has just began.