we either have privacy and deal w/ the bad actors ourselves, or we give the state a skeleton key into every convo under the guise of "protection" , there's no middle ground. today it's kiddie pics, tomorrow it's wrongthink about inflation. classic authoritarian creep. Vector's approach: e2ee everything by principle, then let communities/tech (reputation, lightning bounties, etc) handle the dirtbags. no trusted thirds, no masters.

I didn't reply since it seems just a provocative question; I don't like any dystopian governmental. Let's rewind. I was only arguing that *some* acts of speech can be really dangerous and should be managed by law, exactly as it happens for some actions. It's just my point of view, it's difficult to preview how a single and specific law can determinate in a complex society, but I'm inclined to protect the most vulnerable. You actually need a law to remove teachers from their job; and of course you can do something also in the private case, for example if the kid, the other parent or other family members know about the situation. And you still need a law to act and stop the offender. Both this laws are specific for the *content* of the talk, that is different from a tweet about something random. So is the talk's content the difference? Sure. And who decide what content is bad? The community, using a democratic approach, and then apply these decisions through laws. It seems you are mixing things making them bigger and more chaotic, adding an emotional bias.