As we saw with WikiLeaks, one thing is what the law says, and something else is what the government can actually do. In the case of WikiLeaks the government did a lot of things that the law clearly didn't permit; Bitcoin, by contrast, keeps authoritarian governments from doing undesirable things even if they pass laws that permit them.

To "freeze" my Bitcoin "account" you'd have to steal my phone and then bruteforce the PIN before I used the seed phrase to sweep the coins into a different wallet on a new phone. Not impossible by any means, but of similar difficulty to imprisoning me. I have other coins that are stored under a different seed phrase that isn't on my phone, and there are people with safer storage than that. If the government was in a position to imprison all the protestors they wouldn't be trying to target their bank accounts.

Of course centralized crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers aren't any safer than centralized banks, whether they use Bitcoin, dollars, or yuan. But your Bitcoin wallet is definitely a lot safer than your bank account from being frozen out from under you, unless it's something like a Binance account or a Coinbase account.

Generally people don't "pay everything in btc", both because of the transaction costs (33¢ in my most recent transaction, but often as high as US$8) and because not many sellers accept BTC; instead they exchange the BTC for local currencies that are more widely accepted and have lower transaction costs.

It's true that Bitcoin has privacy problems, but it doesn't have the problem where your wallet just suddenly stops working because of unlawful government action and you have no recourse. Even at privacy, it's not clear that it's worse than the banking system when your adversary is the government.