"I don't have an issue with the platform used for moral but illegal uses. If it helps people get medicine they need then I'm happy for them."
You really, really should not have said that. It will probably come back to bite you. Even if it doesn't, why even take the risk in making a statement like that in today's climate?
I've gone beyond the point where any given act of self-censorship is more beneficial than speaking the truth of the situation.
My position: over the next few generations, adoption of decentralized technology will result in an enormously more peaceful and prosperous humanity then the centrally-controlled alternative. If we take the path of reliance on systems that are controlled by a few powerful organizations then we are at their mercy. The alternatives must exist for those who want to opt out.
I can obviously be accused of naivety, but if I'm open about my motives and my expectations it seems less likely to be accused of malicious intent.
I don’t think you’ll be charged with naivety, more likely that’s what your attorney will desperately try to plead. Of course, your words cited by GP will make that impossible.
Don't let fear paralyze you. If those pushing the boundaries censored themselves based upon the fear of being persecuted in the future, we'd have no progress.
As far as I know, as long as they don't host any nodes with illegal content, they shouldn't get in trouble just for publishing the protocol and the client protocol and servers. Otherwise, the inventors of tcp/ip, http, bittorrent, telnet and more would be in prison.
> You really, really should not have said that. It will probably come back to bite you. Even if it doesn't, why even take the risk in making a statement like that in today's climate?
Hey now. Let's not shame people for speaking truth to power. This is a great forum for it.
You really, really should not have said that. It will probably come back to bite you. Even if it doesn't, why even take the risk in making a statement like that in today's climate?