No, it is not. What happens is:

1. Money confirmed locked into a multisig address(or channel) with a presigned transaction being made returning both parties money THAT REQUIRES BOTH SIGNATURES, and that’s a channel setup.
2. Absolutely no money can be stolen from here because any change to the cashout balance distribution requires both parties to sign off on it.

3. You update your signed transactions, incrementing a transaction field that enforces by consensus the fact that the most recent TX will trump previous ones.

4. When the channel is closed, you submit the closure and done. If a fraudulent one is confirmed, consensus enforces a more recent one as valid for a period aftewards.

Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT cruxes on the point that “miners censoring stuff could cause you to lose money.” How does that in any way except in delusional imagination land change anything with second layer versus the mainchain? Miners could just censor your coins forever. Miners could implement consensus rules making your specific outputs invalid to spend forever, reducing your entire savings to 0$.

Explain to me why exactly its more risky to build second layers which allow users to independently validate the main chain they are all based on, versus making it more difficult to validate, putting more control in the hands of miners, who are still just as capable of censoring your transaction?

All of your arguments are psychotically irrational and structured in the frame of someone who has completely and again all reason decided “doing this one thing will guarantee I get very rich” and fixating on accomplishing that one thing no matter what, reality be damned. Its really sad, strange, and not healthy.