This makes things permissioned. In the white paper it specifically puts emphasis on a "permissionless" P2P payment system. Arbitary data or not, if they follow the rules. Enough said.
Discussion
What "arbitrary" data shall a payment system contain for a payment beside the recepient and the amount?
Er no. Never said that. Was implying arbritary data cannot be stopped. As a consensus based P2P network the best we can hope for is that all users at least follow the set rules of the network and pay miner fees properly. What I personally dislike about "spam blockers" is that they are imposing a different set of rules which alter the original consensus of the network without agreement of the majority of the network.
They ARE NOT stupid so therefore they are VERY CAREFUL with their wording. They will often say we believe in Knots and that it is "just". If you don't like it "build your own network". Essentially saying: "Our way or get the fuck out". Also have not seen one good argument as to "why Knots", EVER
Also have tirelessly being pointing out. Current arbritry data on the blockchain is not even in the OP Return like with Casey's ordinals. Bitvmv2 is putting arbritary data on the UTXO set rather than the OP Return. Luke's filters are absolutely meaningless because they only censor large OP Return (83 bytes) data sets in transactions. Nothing to do with arbritary data in the UTXO set.
FWIW, there is still arbritary data on the blockchain if you how to look for it. And the Mempool has been fucking empty most of the time in recent months.
This is all beginning to feel completely meaningless to even discuss. Less than 1% of users transact onchain anyways. At least those of us who oppose the likes of Luke actually support continuous use on enchain transactions utilizing privacy tools