Don’t let it go unnoticed that the Supreme Court has now ruled that banning communication channels that THE GOVERNMENT DECIDES are a threat to national security is LEGAL and NOT A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
nostr:note10l0elg3sedq82u5d9gvx7nhthw4pjdtt6famf4rxxlfmeggq3dnqnqes3j
Not gonna say I told you so as it does nothing for national security and how it further pushes the 1984 agenda of controlling a population …
At least I’m not the only one who doesn’t like TikTok
Just in time for the great reset...
This is what I think. Is it a scam, yes, but in my opinion, it has the potential to undermind faith in the dollar. That's the part that concerns me. That's bullish for bitcoin, but sucks for USD maxis.
How did they define ‘communication channel’? Could they ban email? Nostr?
Communication channel is my own terminology here. And good questions. I wonder the same thing. Could they? Could this be a way to come after end to end encryption next?
Nostr solves this and thats why nostr:nprofile1qqsx096sqa7pdweyhzcqg5xj9df22ktgs226vqt48k6x546cjed4rzcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qywhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnzd96xxmmfdejhytnnda3kjctv9uq3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd4hk6tcdjs4nh is important. 🤝
"If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each party can speak about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One could pass laws against it, but the freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is fundamental to an open society; we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to."
Eric Hughes, A Cypherpunk's Manifesto March, 9, 1993
It’s quite sad actually
The supreme court will bend over backwards for what it views as national security
Language Transmitter License
