@wjmaggos @amerika @EmoIsDeadAndSoAmI @Bunnyslope @arcanicanis

> yet you refused to explain that to me

I explained it repeatedly and you ignored it every time.

> and you go on about how moderation is bad

Depending on what you mean by moderation, this makes no sense. I say "no opinions are censored" and I mean exactly that and you don't listen.

> building a system where it will be impossible...

Building a system under which no one will be able to censor another person? Yes, obviously. No one will be able to decide on anyone else's behalf what they can post, who they can talk to, or who they can listen to.

The printing press was heavily opposed by the Catholic Church: you control history if propagating text relies on having an army of scribes. Hand-wringing from bishops about how, with a printing press, *anyone* could just print *any* kind of heresy ("misinformation" from their perspective) and propagate it all over. What I am building is much more modest than the printing press, but I do not understand why "completely uncensorable" could conceivably be a bad thing to anyone but a statist.