So you oppose labeling speech as “hate,” because you understand how easily that leads to censorship by those in power.

But then you support labeling Bitcoin transactions as “spam,” even when they follow consensus and pay fees, simply because of their content?

It’s the same core issue:

Who gets to decide what’s acceptable in open systems?

In society, it’s supposed to be collective human judgment — not state-enforced definitions.

In Bitcoin, it’s the fee market — not a handful of devs or filtered relay policies.

Open systems self-regulate.

If we start pre-filtering based on fear, optics, or personal values, we’re not protecting freedom — we’re rebuilding the very control structures we claim to resist.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

But you see that hate speech leads to horrific results.

I am not saying that people should endorse hate speech. Hate speech is not part of any Culture.

Good speech needs to be endorsed.

Same with spam. Spam will lead to terrible results. We can't 100% ban it or stop it but lets not endorse it and lets not make it an easy entry.

You don’t see the essence of it?

Who decides what’s “freedom” and what’s “hate”?

Governments and media.

They don’t want society to self-regulate they want control.

They reward, they punish, they define the boundaries of speech.

Now ask yourself:

Who gets to decide what is and isn’t spam on Bitcoin?

Knots want that role.

They want to be the gatekeepers.

But they forget something fundamental:

Bitcoin already has a trustless, self-regulating system: fees and consensus.

That is the law.

That is the beauty.

So when you import the logic of the broken world :the logic of filtering, judging, controlling into the most neutral protocol ever invented…

You don’t protect Bitcoin.

You turn it into something else.

Something dangerously close to the very thing it was built to escape.