If the “censorship” involved is in fact an attempt to mitigate an attack meant to centralize block production, which is actually more harmful to the chain? The few “censored” transactions or the centralization of the entire transaction validation process?
I appreciate this perspective as a lesser of two evils. I still think listing it among your criteria for what DPoS allows is inappropriate. There are many, many other forms of harm we could come up with that network participants could use. We didn't list those, so why list this? Is it to justify actions taken as if they are normal, every day occurrences that any witness "can" do?
A witness can shoot themselves in the head, shut down their server before disabling their witness account, run multiple nodes as a sybil attack, etc, etc... there are many things which we can call "facts" and say witnesses "can" do them. Of the items in your list, I only see #2 out of place because it is a form of harm against the network.
I think it would be more accurate list the protection mechanisms in a war-time scenario that DPoS can use to defend itself and what level of harm each of those create.
Either way, thank you for the respectful dialogue.