Which is what is already happening with regular HTTP.
I appreciate how people still say that protocols are content agnostic and not subordinated to politics, but in fact it's the other way around, at least for the latter.
That said, I don't particularly see IPFS as a specific purpose oriented technology, but rather as a technically improved web, like it is advertised. Something of this nature should be ready for all scenarios we're describing:
- If an internet carrier decides to censor, block or make unavailable specific content, they should be able to do so;
- If a government or a company decides to block content in their internal network (assuming there is such thing as a government internal network), then they should be able to do so;
- If an individual decides to disobey the above carriers, governments, companies and unblock particular content for viewing or even publishing, then she/he should be able to do so;
Those three are possible today with the Tor protocol, and the way people who doesn't like one or more of the three scenarios deal with it are through propaganda, activism and otherwise political activity.
Of course, it shall be said that some political activity of some players involves targeting and harassing Tor developers, which in turn demands more political activity from the Tor community. But so far the disagreements on how people should use Tor seem to remain manifested mostly at the cyber war level.