Your screenshot basically states: propaganda exists and is bad, and Bitcoin mining is not centralized.
I have written about mining centralization here:
- 
Your article lost me at "Transactions have never been censored".
Mining pools such as MARA and F2Pool have already done “OFAC-compliant“ Bitcoin mining (transaction censorship).
It's quite simple:
- Bitcoin's mining "decentralization" lives or dies at the template layer, not at hashrate.
- As long as pools (not miners) pick transactions, the State can steer settlement via perimeter levers (power, banks, insurers, export controls, app-store rules, cloud/mempool policy).
At present, a regulator only needs to influence a few pool operators, not thousands of ASIC owners.
Does this sound decentralized or centralized.
I guess, your theory is that if censorship becomes too draconian, more mining pools will be formed and we'll have, say, 15 pools instead of 6-7 which would be more decentralized.
In theory, 15 pools would be more difficult to influence than 6-7, but would you rather have template control in the hands of thousands of ASIC owners (e.g. OCEAN-model pools), or 15 StratumV1 pools.
If it were that simple and miners were rational, not-state-controlled actors, you'd have way more than 2% of the hashrate using the OCEAN model.
The theory "if it gets bad, all participants will act in the best interest of the network because they are rational and incentivized to do so" already failed once a few weeks ago.
It is great theory if you want a false sense of security though.
Bitcoin's mining centralization problem (Hashrate ≠ Freedom)
Hashrate ≠ freedom. Templates = freedom. Until miner-templating is common and censorship correlation breaks, rising hashrate is mostly optics.
