I've seen people raising funds by simply posting their bank details to get money sent there. That's already not Bitcoin. I know that the bank can also do nasty things, but I think that you understand my point.

On the other hand, a Bitcoin platform similar to GoFundMe may use a custodial wallet for collecting the funds and have the power to review/seize those funds. (Of course, also an address can be posted for collecting donations.)

So "bitcoin literally fixes this" is pretty much incorrect also in my opinion.

it may stop the funding site from 'freezing' a payout by not requiring a funding site to collect payment, when just displaying a random persons bitcoin address

but if an organisation chose Trucker Joe Briggs to present his personal bitcoin address.. joe briggs can also decide he wont pay out, and instead retire to cuba with a lifetimes worth of money.

usually organisations want other publicly liable organisations to be custodians. to ensure no one just runs off with funds
this then requires public disclosure of the person accepting donations. by which authorities can then still make a request on that person to not pay out until authorities have investigated the funds.

yes people can just present their personal payment details to each other. but that requires trusting them.
its why gofundme works because they have policies to ensure the payout is genuinely used for its advertised purpose.  far more than just trusting some random person.

so its no different than accepting fiat or bitcoin. in many ways. yea someone can reveal their fiat debit card and ask people to 'top-up' their debit card. or they can use an organisation that vets charities.. bitcoin however does not have a good vetting system

so pro's and cons on both sides

Because Trucker Joe briggs BTC address is not an option I think Gofundme version for BTC would be a good project to develop for unstoppable funding like this. The funds would help theb group to organize what they would do next but they are shutdown by Gofundme itself.

Too bad no one can be trusted anymore even the platform thats suppose.to be independent.

Bitcoin fixes part of the problem not all of it, it removes the need for third parties and prevents them from putting their hands in your pocket easily and without your permission, otherwise it doesn't eliminate the fact that these centralized authorities can still force anyone to answer to them and they can even force them to give up all the funds they received by intimidation, etc.

Are you suggesting that the Canadian government will use intimidation to force a group of truckers to give up the keys from a donation wallet? I believe that would be a first.

Plus don’t Bitcoin mixers/tumblers, CoinJoin, and multisig literally fix that problem too?

I don't trust crowdfunding, most of the money that's donated in those platforms aren't going to go to the causes and crowdfunding websites are full of scammers wanting a quick buck so I have lost my faith in it a long time ago. The only problem with them using bitcoin as a donation is that the people that they're going to pay with it might not accept it but you're right that bitcoin can easily fix this problem.

What exactly surprised you? That the aggression (intimidation, coercion, etc) against others is arguably the only way to deprive people of cryptographically-secure currency or that the government can perform aggression against others to take away someone's money? As for the former part, the only non-aggressive method of confiscating money that I can think of is to generate accidentally a private key or seed that has already been funded by a previous owner, which is practically infeasible but still probable. As for the latter part... Do you know any non-aggressive methods governments use to acquire money to fund their needs? Please, name a few... That governments have been employing for thousands of years different coercive methods to acquire wealth shouldn't come as a surprise. Coercion, intimidation, aggression is the only possible means with which an entity that produces nothing can finance their endeavors. It even doesn't matter what currency we are talking of: if the government wants your money, they will find a way to take it away from you since the mere existence of the government solely depends on it.

You can’t even argue about vaccination, but in Russia a certificate costs $100, in Europe it’s $200, is it really a problem in Canada? Just the sellers of these certificates accept bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies so that you do not pay unknown people from your bank card.

Isn't this more of a problem with a centralized fund raising platform than a problem about currency? If, for example, the Freedom Convoy 2020 campaign would ditch GoFundMe and would instead solicit funds by secretly reaching out to select individuals, groups, and institutions, would that not sufficiently address this problem?

Could cash, for example, be censored? What if the group would completely do away with banks and other centralized platforms? Wouldn't that be enough for their funds to avoid getting frozen?