It probably could be fine for public user data that you want to spread out and be somewhat resistant to censor from governments.
> but that's not relevant to the point I'm trying to make.
why do you talk about it if it isn't relevant?
> but that's not relevant to the point I'm trying to make.
why do you talk about it if it isn't relevant?
Can you give an example? “spread out and be somewhat resistant to censorship from governments” is just a description of blockchain's strengths¹.
> why do you talk about it if it isn't relevant?
If I didn't mention it, I'd be lying by omission. In order for this discussion to make sense, I have to make the implicit assumption that blockchain is good for anything. I have never, in my life, encountered a situation where blockchain is better than alternatives. Heck, I'm half-convinced that Bitcoin would've been better off with a block-graph (like Git); it models the dependencies better, and means attempted double-spend attacks have a lower impact on the rest of the ledger. (51% attacks would be a little easier, but only for very recent transactions, assuming even distribution of wealth² and a free market economy³.)
¹: though it isn't particularly good at either of those things in practice
²: this is a bad assumption, but it would only affect wealth hoarders so I don't care
³: this is a really bad assumption, but it wouldn't take much improvement to the world to make it a sufficiently reasonable assumption
it is very easy to find an example of censorship, not sure why you need one but let's say: "World marks 32 years since Tiananmen massacre as China censors all mention of it"
There is also daily examples of censorship on this website.