We are way beyond that. In certain european countries you cannot legally share privately a sentence that would offend someone else.

> you can't share porn, then you can't share violence

First Porn, Now Skin Cream? ‘Age Verification’ Bills Are Out of Control (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/first-porn-now-skin-cr...)

Not often mentioned but violence is the greatest enemy of people in power.

They always say stuff like "violence doesn't belong in politics", "violence is always wrong". But look at the French revolution, they had to cut the dictator's ("king's") head off to stop him from trying to get back into power. Look at the US for for independence, how many redcoats had to get shot before the UK decided it's not longer economical to keep oppressing the colony. Look at the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, a public execution of a mass murderer.

And for now we're allowed to celebrate those events. Some are even national holidays. But we can not publicly discuss current events in the same manner. Those supporting recent assassinations or attempts usually get banned and many don't even dare voice their support. But there is some line where the fourth box of liberty _should_ come out. And I don't think we have enough freedom of speech currently to discuss where exactly the line lies. (Note to mods, I don't have an opinion on the recent shooting and this message is not related to it. I would have posted the exact same thing even if it didn't happen and have posted similar messages in the past.)

BTW this is funny: Brandon Herrera posted a video reconstructing the headshot by Gary Plauché where it's obvious both him and the commenters support the killing. He also reconstructed the, well, earshot by Thomas Matthew Crooks and denounced it. I wonder if he would support an assassination if it turned out Trump got, say, a massage with a happy ending from an underage girl trafficked by his friend. That would imply being a pedophile is worse than being a fascist[0] in his mind.

[0]: https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-...

---

Anyway, violence should be used carefully as a last resort but people in power are afraid of it because ultimately, no matter how much power they have, they still need a continuous supply of oxygen to their brain, which can be interrupted in a number of ways and the probability of such an event increases proportionally to the number of people they exploit.

Or, say… posting condemning comments about Charlie Kirk online..?

Drink verification can to send a packet.

Or a small set of supranational entities that are responsible for creating the illusion of national entities are taking advantage of the headless blunder that are nation-states to execute their master plan in lockstep.

> An internet where what you say online, will be treated with no difference than if you had said it in person.

It's 1984. Surveillance in your home so you only speak the government speak. If you criticize the government or the genocides commited by them you're "doing hate speech/wrong think" and you'll receive the cops at your door to be disappeared without recourse

The populace will be told you were evil and no one dares question too much or they will be next.

Or we can tell them to fuck off and stop buying into every little crisis and fake right v left fight they try to sell.

From the second link:

> The privacy considerations for digital credentials are not static. They will evolve over time as the ecosystem matures, and may be informed by the behavior of other actors in the ecosystem, improvements in other layers of the stack, new threats to user privacy, as well as changing societal norms and regulations.

Boil the frog slowly and carefully, and look out for opportune moments that could help to speed up the process.

The Semantic Surveillance Web

Probably.

That's why you need to diversify software ecosystems now.

If we're going to go this route can we at least re-introduce the fairness doctrine?

This goes even beyond the delusions that we believed in the 1990s which have been proven embarrassingly naive.

But I wish you were right.

A political party that is free from lobbyists and actually care for its citizens would be a good thing though. Number one reason of the decline in the west.

Does it? Some parts of the world have revolutions every other week and are still jot as good as anything we have in the west despite our massive flaws

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_revolution

Since this is EU level legistlation and blocking minority is already ignored (e.g. going in to the streets does not matter in there), it is much more difficult.

Maybe we should schedule a day in the future where everyone travels to Strasbourg/Brussels for a demonstration.

And if you have enough young people, which Europe does not.

and what if a system of mediation can pick up the encrypted messages sent by dissidents and formulate a plan to crush the resistance? To government-for-hire companies, it's a service problem, not a systemic one.

The worst case is when only approved hardware and software will be legal, and every level of infrastructure will be enforcing that. You can say good bye to decentralized solutions then.

Note how Apple is already a bit like that, banning certain torrenting apps even from alternative app stores [0]. I’m just mentioning that as a demonstration of the feasibility of such closed and controlled ecosystems. Now restrict ISP network traffic to packets signed by approved hardware, and there aren’t that many practical loopholes left.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45098411