Simplified my views are as follows. Contiguous spam is less harmful to Bitcoin than lots of little shards of spam. Hard drive space is cheap and op return can be pruned.  Utxo spam created by lots of nonsense is impossible to stop and much worse for decentralization. So I question the core argument that this is a better move.

Csam in1000s of transactions or in 1 is not legally or morally different. As a node runner it’s not something I think about because I’m not in the business of looking at other people’s transactions. I run a node for my transactions and to ensure I am transacting within a system with the expected consensus rules. 

I am more worried about utxo spam attacks and these new consensus rules actually make the chain more vulnerable to an attack of this nature. 

The way the bip has been presented is dishonest. It’s not an emergency. Bitcoin is not failing or in trouble if we don’t make these changes. If people actually believe this they are hysterical and should be dismissed. If they are just saying this to get it passed they are playing a game of politics and should not be trusted and again dismissed.

If they had said “We find this use of the chain untenable and are going to hard fork” - I would be in full support of that path. I wouldn’t run their code, but I wouldn’t be calling them retards. The use of a soft fork is for soft hands. No conviction, no skin in the game. It’s not how Bitcoin wins. They won’t take bets on the success of their fork and this process they have purposefully picked requires no skin in the game. It is a terrible example to set and on this aspect alone I would reject it. The last thing I want is to invite social attacks or the Feds thinking Bitcoin can be changed on a whim and with classic fed csam talking points.