If you're not, then make your own template with DATUM, or join another pool. The censorship resistance isn't established by pools or individual template composers being forced towards being inclusive, it's by the fact that mining isn't gatekept, that blocks are permissive and that there is a massive economical disincentive to reject a valid block.

Also, not mining a tx in mempool isn't censorship per se, it's policy. And although for a longer time, from a LN perspective uniformity in block templates was expected, it isn't sustainable and I feel like we've largely moved away from that delusion since full RBF.

True censorship would more look like this:

... and so on.

It takes a fundamental misunderstanding of how Bitcoin works to pretend this is censorship. They can increase their fee and any miner is free to mine them at any fee. Just like any miner is free to not mine them. It's not censorship at all. Is it censorship when miners put their own transactions or side channel accelerated transactions with low fees in blocks before mine? No. Is there some kind of rule about what miners have to put in a given block? No.

If you want to talk censorship let's talk the fact American mining companies are OFAC compliant and actively refuse to include transactions in blocks. Is that despicable and should we boycott those companies? Yes. Is it censorship? Not unless those miners are reorging the chain with a majority of miners every time an OFAC restricted transaction is included by a non-American miner.

This absurd conversation about censorship fundamentally fails to comprehend how Bitcoin works, where it gets its censorship resistant properties from, and what the execution of those properties looks like in action. It looks exactly like this. Learn about Bitcoin instead of being a sensationalist tool.

You can't force a miner to include a transaction

only if you're cool with forced speech

Well, I personally was never a fan of inscriptions.