This is statistically incorrect and you’re pushing this misinformation to confirm your personal bias. As per most recent data for Bitcoin mining, it’s a pretty even split across pools. Understanding how mining pools work (different individuals and companies offer their hash power to the pool, geographically decentralized) helps us come to the conclusion that no company or person has anywhere near enough hashing power to be able to control anything on the network or create blacklists, because the hashing power can be removed and relocated to another pool or individual mining at any time. 
Discussion
In Bitcoin world it is often said greed = good. That people don't have to care about Bitcoin they just need to care about profit.
If those pools are the most competitive and paying the most (evident by their share of hashpower) why would miners relocate just because they blacklist?
Curious what your response to this is
You can still be greedy and mindful of the long term health and wellbeing of the network that's paying you. Greed does not necessarily equate to extremely short-term thinking
What if the share of non-ideological miners grow (natural outcome and somewhat true even today - largest pools are KYC) and think blacklists are okay, and even necessary, to deal with nation state acceptance (trojan horse stuff) so good for profits in the long term too
game theory would suggest that if one country tries to censor there will be another country that will mine it. Nation states will mine to protect their own access to the network, probably are doing so already if hashrate is any indication.
If a nation state is your adversary and that country is trying to censor, it's in your interest to mine anything they want censored.
Ultimately this can create a situation where some transitions require a premium to be mined, we'll see. But the decentralized nature of hashrate is designed to put organizations into competition.
For sure a possibility, but I don’t think that would lead to control or true censorship of the network. It would definitely impact specific nations perhaps, as in localized censorship (ex: US based miners blacklist transactions from unknown entities), but the network being decentralized and having multiple options means the free market to move where it is the free-eat (elsewhere would opt for the idealogical approach, in some cases as an intentional counter to the authoritarian party).