On one hand, that seems stupid to me (hashrater) but since bitcoin doesn't care about my views, Ocean is putting hashrates where their speech are; all Ocean's known members are anti-ordinals, so it seems logical this point of view. Since Ocean is working following the protocol and doing some filtering1 and they're not attacking the network, go ahead and keep doing the work sir.
Now, are they going to survive filtering ordinals? Let's see what the market and us, hashraters say about it. It's going to be fun :)

Footnotes

  1. to me, it's censorship but that's me again
Regarding your footnote, I don't call that censorship, I call it "leaving money on the table", but again, it's something everyone is entitled to, if their ethics require them to. Yet others might call it "virtue signalling" but hey, welcome to the marketplace of ideas.
reply
Exactly sir. Put your hashrates where your speech is (?) and put the seabelt, this is going to be fun.
reply
Let me ask you this. If your email provider would start filtering hundreds of daily spam and scam mails that suddenly popped up and make the client unusable, would you leave them? Or would you suffer the censorship?
reply
Well, your filtering is also considering coinjoin, omni and BIP47 transactions. And moreover, the client provider is saying that is the creator's fault without any logical argument.
But, coming back your example, you made already the assumption ordinals are spam, they're not1. They're using bitcoin in ways you and other people disagree.
Don't like it? Two options:
  1. Consider Dr. Calle's solution: shaming people for owning jpeg. Long time preference on this one (?)
  2. Put your hashrates in Ocean and start mining while show people that joining Mining is ethically2 but also profitable business. Show miners that, without ordinals, bitcoin can concentrate in other projects such as Lightning Network and make more money.
There's a third option also: cry like Kaiser 🤡 but since we're all here for decentralization I can't recommend hard enough this one. But hey! feel free to join.

Footnotes
  1. Made my research and I don't consider it.
  2. Also consider Luke's past where he spammed the network with biblical verses.
reply
Bitcoin was not designed to store arbitrary data, it was designed as a money. Hence arbitrary data being stored on chain and clogging its money use case can be considered unwanted and spam according to this ethos.
From the start, measures were taken to combat spam (e.g. fees). These measures have been unsuccesul for the past months, which lowers or slows the adoption of Bitcoin as money.
I am not saying Luke has the right solution here. Or anyone for that matter.
reply