- Edited
I'm not sure I got your point right. Certainly, if you want to be funded, don't criticize arXiv and keep well away from the censorship danger zone by proposing ideas that might annoy some academic interests. On the contrary, to obtain funding easily, you have to try to ride the highest wave of the latest mainstream topic, trying to accommodate the ideas of those who could grant you the funds.
In fact, you are writing on the FQxI website which would have no reason to exist if innovative ideas brought secure funds :"FQxI catalyzes research and outreach primarily on questions at the foundations of physics and cosmology. FQxI supports high-risk, high-reward science—in particular new frontiers and innovative ideas integral to a deep understanding of physical reality that lie beyond the remit of conventional institutional support and funding. FQxI strives to make science more effective and equitable in all its efforts."
I am raising a problem which, as far as I have been able to ascertain, is blocking the free development of the scientific debate, of policies that are in open contrast with the basic aspect of the scientific method according to which "“the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual” [Galileo (1610)]." This means that the validity of a scientific idea is not unequivocally established by an authority without providing motivations or simply ignored altogether, but it is established with a debate in which the author must be put in the conditions to defend the thesis with reasoning and facts.
Science is above all an exercise of freedom. I think it is clear that there can be no scientific progress if there is no freedom of thought. It is no coincidence that the great scientific revolutions took place in the countries with the most advanced civil rights of that historical period (or which had previously had advanced civil rights). This is because science evolves by revolutions and revolutions can only happen in societies flexible enough to assimilate them. The word revolution itself, understood as the subversion of established ideas in general, comes from science where it originally indicated the movement of the planets (Maybe there would not have been the French Revolution, with the principle of equality among all people, if it hadn't been for the discovery that the earth has a "revolution" motion as all the other planets and it is not placed at the center of the universe just like the King is not placed at the center of the universe by divine right).
In conclusion, scientific progress can only blossom in soil fertilized by freedom of thought and debate.