People can choose to do what they want, but they can't choose the effects of policies. Immutable storage use case works against the sound money use case. Former drives up resource usage making running nodes more costly, reducing node distribution: prices out small utxos rendering them less valuable or valueless. 

 Sound money is an infinitely more important use case, so btc should optimize for that, which means minimizing the immutable storage use case. 

 If the were to patch the unintended code that allows ordinals, would that be censorship? 

 Perhaps, then, a well designed UX can teach good things instead. 

 Optimizing the money use over the storage case sounds extremely important to me. 

 It's a bug workaround, not censorship. 

 I oppose all censorship, but ordinals are exploiting a bug. They would not normally be there.  So, if they fix the bug, is that censorship? 

 https://njump.me/naddr1qqxnzdesxyurwd3jxuengv3nqgsr9cvzwc652r4m83d86ykplrnm9dg5gwdvzzn8ameanlvut35wy3grqsqqqa280afpv2 

 If ordinals are utilizing a bug, the not including them is more like aworkaround than censorship.