I don't think you read the article or you've just decided to argue using straw man arguments.

The "Censorship precedent" argument is that a consensus rule that behavior-gates transactions is a category change that redefines who has leverage at the protocol boundary.

Once that leverage exists and is legible, actors with power will use it.

I am not arguing that arbitrary data above 83 bytes improves monetary properties anywhere in my text.

I've not argued that limiting arbitrary data to 83 bytes in consensus can be used to censor monetary transactions either, so that's another straw man.

Censorship precedent = You've now normalized consensus-level behavioral gating for “safety”. That's an open door for later parameterization under new banners (AI-safety, “public health”, carbon, “foreign influence”).

Bitcoin's non-capture story rests on client plurality + rough consensus + time. A small, reputationally central cohort shepherding a soft fork that restricts content looks like governance (even if technically sound). This happens in a response to the changes a small, reputationally central cohort (Bitcoin Core) has made to Bitcoin.

Once the public accepts that “a group can push binding changes that prune behaviors”, external actors will lobby that group. You just created a policy choke-point.

So you've disagreed with yourself here because I didn't make any of the arguments you mentioned.

Precedent means an act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.

I don't think censoring dickbutt jpegs in a monetary network is censorship. Hope this clears things up.