I have a feeling that decentralized file sharing and publishing is going to come back in an extreme way. We’ve seen the way that the internet has fundamentally changed during our lives. The beautiful transcendent spirit of the internet has been crushed under the foot of both the state and the media.

It’s important to understand that the West Coast technolibertarianism is merely tolerated by the DC/NYC power center. When utopian technologists’ influence grew too much, they were reigned in, not unlike Xi’s reeling in of his own tech entrepreneurs to obey the “party” line. Facebook is getting called to Congress repeatedly, while TikTok operates harvesting metadata that can be accessed by the CCP.

What should the internet be? In my opinion, it shouldn’t be controlled by ICANN or hosting providers who will bend the knee to whatever government has decided that information shouldn’t be freely accessible.

What started with Wikileaks and Assange has resulted in mass deplatforming of “alternative” opinions on BigTech. The idea that we’ve dressed up non-conformist content under some spectre of “disinformation” or “misinformation” is a rejection of the process by which information should be disseminated. Google deranking or deindexing a website is the modern day version of burning books. If you can’t find the website, is it even there? Someone might have a copy, but the supply should be in proportion to the demand.

“Build your own platform” - You know what happens when you build a platform that enshrines the first amendment. You’re labelled as bigoted, hateful, and vilified as “enabling domestic terrorism”. How things have developed in the last twenty years. To think that Michael Chertoff, co-author of the PATRIOT ACT and W Bush’s head of the DHS was the second choice to lead the government “Disinformation board” (How Orwellian). The first choice was Nina Jankowicz, a relatively well qualified choice who wants to “win the information war” via government involvement in censoring disinformation. How is it not clear that creating bulletproof resources that global netizens can access behind their own government’s firewalls is the “way to win”. Voice of America isn’t going to cut it in the 21st century.

The decision that opinions should or should not see the light of day cannot be the choice of the state or these actors alone. This isn’t a public/private argument about the first amendment. This is about enshrining the first amendment in such a way that it cannot be restrained.

Do we want freedom? Or do we want it only when it’s convenient?

-Seb