Michael Saylor just published 110 reasons why a plan to "clean up" Bitcoin is a bad idea.

The proposal, called BIP-110, would temporarily restrict certain types of data from being written into Bitcoin transactions, the kind of data that powers things like Ordinals inscriptions. Supporters call it spam cleanup. Saylor calls it something else entirely.
His argument: Bitcoin's whole design is built on not judging what a transaction is for, as long as it pays the fee. The moment the protocol starts filtering by content, even temporarily, it sets a precedent that's hard to undo, and today's "spam" could be tomorrow's privacy tool or business use case.
This isn't really a price story. It's a debate about what $BTC is actually for.
Where do you land? Should the network stay completely neutral, or is some content filtering worth the tradeoff?