One reason why I do not concede that jpegs are "spam" is because it is an extremely subjective definition. This is very ironic given that bitcoin "philosophers" orient their entire brand around objective reasoning from First Principles. As @BitMEXResearch wisely points out, a USEFUL definition of spam should take into account the intention of the person creating the transactions. Are they trying to cause harm or bloat as their primary activity? This is overwhelmingly not the case (even though I and others like to antagonize anti-filterooors by joking about this, but those are jokes). How do you reconcile over $600 million in fees spent putting arbitrary data on-chain with calling these transactions spam? Even if you do disregard blockspace purchased, user-intent, I think a useful definition of spam should require the spam to have toxic secondary effects. However we see this transaction activity be largely benign for both noderunner operation (due to the block size) and in competing with exclusively monetary transactions. The only reason I typically don't debate this point is because anti-filterooors, even many "neutral" bitcoiners, are incapable of having a productive discussion about secondary points if you do not adopt their language & definitions of spam.(cbspears ◉)