Freedom of speech is the bedrock of progress, enabling society to challenge norms, question power, and push for better solutions. Unfortunately, our current path seems to be heading toward a reality where a centralized entity can throttle that freedom at will, where algorithms can silence voices under the pretense of safety, and backdoors in encrypted communication channels are seen as a necessary evil to fight money laundering and terrorism.
We need a digital landscape where true privacy exists, where our words aren’t channeled through surveillance pipelines leading to agencies with too much power. We need platforms that offer end-to-end encryption, immune to hidden backdoors. And, yes, we need financial systems that don’t track every transaction as if it were a potential crime scene.
This isn’t a battle for tech moguls or political experts alone; it's a fight for all of us. Because once the power to censor, surveil, or control is embedded into our digital infrastructure, it becomes a weapon that can—and will—be used against the people. We've already seen people in the UK being arrested for saying things online. Regardless of whether we agree with what has been said, if it falls within the bounds of the law, then nobody should be arrested just because someone wants to label it as hate speech. Neither for opposing opinions nor for inconvenient truths.
So, whether or not you agree with the names and figures often criticized in these discussions, the core message remains the same: we need to safeguard the technology that preserves our freedoms. We need a digital world where platforms are built to empower people, not surveil or control them. It’s not about picking a political side; it’s about choosing freedom over manipulation, autonomy over control, and an open future over one closed off by gatekeepers.
Social media and censorship
The Twitter Files exposed a side of social media that many suspected but couldn’t fully grasp. The level of government access to one of the world’s most influential platforms was beyond what any free society should accept. With no legal thresholds or oversight, state actors could flag, shadow ban, throttle, or outright ban users based on what they deemed “misinformation.” Many times, the information silenced was not dangerous or false—it was simply inconvenient.
One of the most worrying revelations was how valid, even crucial, information was labeled as misinformation, effectively preventing public access to it. From critical perspectives on COVID-19 vaccination policies to news that could sway political power or influence elections, the ability to control narratives was used like a tool in a power play.
This isn’t just about what happened on one platform; it’s about what it represents. Social media has become the public square, and in a truly free society, that square shouldn’t come with a mute button held by those in power. When valid information is throttled, the collective understanding of society is distorted. Discussions that challenge or refine public policy got silenced before they have the chance to shape minds.
If one platform can pull back the curtain and reveal this level of control, you can bet others are playing a similar game behind closed doors. This leads to a great question: What will other social media platforms do when it becomes clear that they are silencing voices just because someone in power wants that? If platforms that uphold freedom of speech rise and become the norm, the current giants will have to adapt or risk irrelevance. If this issue will be ignored and governments succeed in silencing X, we’ll see more control, more suppression, and a digital landscape that decides for you what truths you’re allowed to see.
The good news is that the people now know or start to find out as more and more lose trust in mainstream news sources and politically biased social platforms. The conversation has started, and the desire for platforms that prioritize freedom over control is growing. Social media that respects user autonomy within the bound of the law is a fundamental necessity. In the wake of the Twitter Files, the tie is turning. Platforms that don’t adapt may not die overnight, but they will face a slow decline as users shift to places that respect their right to know and to speak.
Messaging platforms and surveillance
The Twitter Files exposed a side of social media that many suspected but couldn’t fully grasp. The level of government access to one of the world’s most influential platforms was beyond what any free society should accept. With no legal thresholds or oversight, state actors could flag, shadow-ban, throttle, or outright ban users based on what they deemed “misinformation.” Many times, the information silenced was not dangerous or false—it was simply inconvenient.
One of the most worrying revelations was how valid, even crucial, information was labeled as misinformation, effectively preventing public access to it. From critical perspectives on COVID-19 vaccination policies to news that could sway political power or influence elections, the ability to control narratives was used like a tool in a power play.
This isn’t just about what happened on one platform. Social media has become the public square, and in a truly free society, that square should be an equal playing field with the same rules for everyone. When valid information is throttled, the collective understanding of society is distorted. Discussions that challenge or refine public policy get silenced before they have the chance to shape minds.
If one platform can pull back the curtain and reveal this level of control, you can bet others are playing a similar game behind closed doors. This leads to an important question: What will other social media platforms do when it becomes clear that they are silencing voices just because someone in power wants that? If platforms that uphold freedom of speech rise and become the norm, the current giants will have to adapt or risk becoming irrelevant. If this issue is ignored and governments succeed in silencing the likes of X, we’ll see more control, more suppression, and a digital landscape that decides for you what truths you’re allowed to see.
The good news is that people now know or are starting to find out as more lose trust in mainstream news sources and politically biased social platforms. The conversation has started, and the desire for platforms that prioritize freedom over control is growing. Social media that respects user autonomy within the bounds of the law is a fundamental necessity. In the wake of The Twitter Files, the tide is turning. Platforms that don’t adapt may not die overnight, but they will face a slow decline as users shift to places that respect their right to know and speak.
Crypto and market manipulation
Crypto wasn’t born in a boardroom; it was created in a cypherpunk movement that believed we should detach money from the state. The original ethos was built on decentralization, privacy, and autonomy. It was a rebellion against the establishment, a tool meant to empower individuals and break down centralized financial control. Somewhere along the way, the narrative shifted, and crypto became something else—a speculative frenzy driven by financial nihilism, greed, and scams.
The once-clear vision of crypto has been flooded by meme coins and hollow projects that serve no purpose beyond fueling gambling culture or pump-and-dump schemes. Bitcoin, as beautiful as the initiative once was (and still can be!), is now a fully transparent blockchain and an ecosystem where privacy-focused initiatives are killed. In my opinion, it’s great for governments that should be transparent towards their people, but not so great for regular citizens. The idea of P2P money detached from the state is doomed to fail if privacy cannot be included. Other projects that do fight for privacy, like Monero and Decred, are throttled and regulated into the shadows. Whether by chance or by design, this shift feels like a coordinated derailment, a psy-op to dilute the revolutionary potential of the technology.
The question is, how did we get here? Institutional interests moved in. As adoption grew and mainstream financial entities saw the potential threats, the narrative changed. The promise of financial freedom became the promise of financial gains, under full control of institutional interests that turned crypto from a rebellion into just another asset class. Bitcoin, once praised as peer-to-peer electronic cash, is now an investment vehicle manipulated by powerful entities like BlackRock. The original vision is nowhere in sight.
While mainstream coins and tokens sit comfortably under the watchful eyes of regulators, privacy-focused and truly decentralized projects face relentless pressure. Compliance standards and regulations are wielded like weapons, stifling innovation and driving the most promising tech into obscurity—all because true decentralization and privacy represent a threat to the current system.
The timing isn’t accidental. Just as the clampdown on privacy projects tightens, we’re seeing an accelerated push for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). These state-issued digital currencies promise convenience but come at the cost of absolute surveillance and control. Every transaction, every payment—monitored and analyzed. It's a world where financial privacy is obsolete, and cash as we know it is on the brink of extinction.
The crypto space stands at a crossroads. On one side, the original vision—a decentralized, autonomous system that empowers individuals. On the other, a sanitized, controlled version of crypto that aligns with state and corporate interests. The choice between them will shape the future of how we interact with money and each other. And as more regulations tighten the screws on true privacy tech, the question becomes: who will stand up for the original mission?
AI and (ideological) control
Artificial intelligence is becoming part of the very infrastructure that will shape the future of information, decisions, and societal norms. The stakes couldn’t be higher, and yet, what we’re seeing unfold is a battle for control—ideological, political, and economic. The largest players in the AI field are creating systems that are far from neutral, infusing them with biases and limiting the range of permissible thought.
We've all seen examples: Google's ultra-woke Gemini and countless cases of political slants in outputs from major LLMs like GPT. These tools, meant to process and synthesize vast amounts of information, are subtly shaping conversations and guiding narratives. And it’s not just incidental; it’s systematic. The imprint of ideologies on these models isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
Why does this matter? Because AI will be one of the most influential technologies in our lifetimes, defining the parameters of discussions, decisions, and even opportunities. It’s a framework that our children will inherit. If these systems are designed with built-in biases or controlled by governments and enterprises pushing specific agendas, we’re not looking at a free exchange of ideas.
The ideological imprint isn’t the only concern. The race for control has another contender: monopoly through regulation. Governments around the world are scrambling to create AI policies that seemingly focus on safety but often serve to protect the interests of established players. These regulations stifle competition, creating a moat around the biggest names in AI, and push smaller, innovative, and open-source initiatives out of the picture.
The future of AI shouldn’t be monopolized by a handful of corporations who play nice with regulators. It should be diverse, with competition that allows people to vote with their wallets and support systems that align with their values. Open-source AI projects and smaller competitors need room to grow, to challenge the narratives being enforced by larger systems. Otherwise, we risk a world where the foundational tools of progress and decision-making are controlled by what serves the powerful instead of what serves society best.
Imagine a world where your search results, your news, your educational content, and even the answers to your questions are filtered through a pre-approved lens. Which for a lot is already the case with the likes of Google. A world where an AI’s political biases subtly nudge public sentiment and where regulations keep the barriers high enough that innovation is stifled.
Neutrality in AI is a hard necessity. We need competition that pushes boundaries, initiatives that aren’t bound by enterprise monopolies, and systems that are built to empower, not control. If AI is going to play a fundamental part in how we engage with the world, it needs to be one that reflects freedom and choice—not compliance and control.
Net neutrality and the battle for an open internet
Net neutrality is the principle that all internet traffic should be treated equally, without discrimination or throttling based on content, platform, or user. It ensures an open internet where anyone can access information freely and equally. This principle has been under assault for years, driven by political maneuvering, corporate interests, and regulatory loopholes that chip away at digital freedom.
Remember Ajit Pai, the former chairman of the FCC who infamously repealed net neutrality regulations? He became a symbol of how a few people in power could overturn the fundamental fairness of the internet. His decision showcased how fragile digital freedoms can be. Without net neutrality, ISPs have the power to prioritize traffic, throttle speeds, or block access altogether, creating a tiered internet that benefits the highest bidder and leaves everyone else behind.
A world without net neutrality could see ISPs favoring their own services, censoring content that challenges their interests, or bowing to government pressure to restrict information. We’re already seeing how this can play out in more extreme forms. Take Brazil, where the government has punished citizens with fines for using VPNs to access a social media platform. Imagine facing penalties for simply wanting to use the internet without government-imposed restrictions. It’s a stark reminder that the battle for net neutrality isn’t just an American problem—it’s global.
It's great to have initiatives like Starlink coming into play. Elon Musk’s satellite-based internet service has been a game-changer for many, offering global connectivity that’s harder to regulate or throttle by local governments. In many ways, it’s the embodiment of a net-neutral infrastructure that bypasses traditional ISPs and government controls. But as much as I applaud Musk for pushing this forward, we have to acknowledge that even Starlink is controlled by a single company. If we’re serious about maintaining a truly neutral and open internet, we need more solutions that don’t rely on one point of control.
What we need is a movement towards decentralized, resilient internet solutions that can’t be co-opted by corporate or governmental interests—solutions where people have true control over how they access and share information. Because as net neutrality shrinks, the possibility of a controlled, manipulated internet looms closer. We can’t allow that to happen. We need more Starlinks—and beyond that, we need systems that are as decentralized as the internet was meant to be.
In an era where control over information can make or break societal narratives, net neutrality is the cornerstone of freedom. If we’re not careful, we could wake up one day to find that what we once took for granted—the open, free exchange of ideas and information—has disappeared entirely.
A call to protect our digital freedom
Just writing this piece feels like stepping into a minefield of polarized opinions. These topics shouldn’t be as divisive as they’ve become. The core issue is incredibly simple, we need to fight for freedom. Not the freedom that comes with any political flag, but the kind that preserves our ability to think, speak, and act independently in a world increasingly driven by technology.
The most frustrating part is that many who would oppose these views are often the same people who protest against oppressive governments dictating what their citizens can wear or say. The irony is there and it would be great if we all woke up to this and realize we're all more aligned than we think. We need to be able to express our thoughts, share knowledge, and challenge the status quo without fear of being censored or controlled by centralized authorities that claim to know what’s best for us.
It’s a fight for the future of discourse, innovation, and democracy. Open discussions are where ideas are tested, broken down, and rebuilt into something better. Without them, we risk stagnation, where only approved narratives are allowed and disagreement is labeled as misinformation or “hate speech.” We need to foster environments where opposing viewpoints sharpen our collective understanding, instead of shut these down.
Yes, it's risky to take a stance that deviates from the mainstream narrative. But the greater risk is staying silent and letting this infrastructure of control grow unchecked. Today, we see the signs—censorship dressed up as protection, surveillance passed off as security, and regulations aimed more at consolidating power than fostering innovation. If we don’t push back now, we'll be losing our digital rights, setting the wrong standard for how future generations will live, communicate, and think.
We owe it to ourselves and to the generations to come to safeguard the technology that shapes our world. To build platforms that promote freedom of speech, protect privacy, and respect user autonomy. To invest in decentralized systems that reduce the risk of a single point of control. Because once that control is in place, it won’t be just the "bad guys" who are silenced—it will be anyone who steps outside the accepted narrative.
In the end, fighting for freedom in the digital age is about choosing principles over convenience, courage over complacency. We can’t afford to ignore it, and we certainly can’t wait for someone else to fight this battle for us. The infrastructure we build today will define the boundaries of freedom tomorrow. Let’s make sure it’s one we’re proud to hand over to the next generation.
