Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, glad to help. The answer is that it depends on what your values are. If you want to reconnect people to twitter (a publishing platform) who have been banned for racist hate speech or inciting violence, and the laws in your jurisdiction permit you to do that. Then you can do that without going to jail. If you want to reconnect people to signal (a personal communications tool) who have been disconnected from it due…
It goes way way beyond inciting violence. For example, Facebook recently shut down the page of Socialist Workers Party in Britain. Facebook suspended well known libertarian Ron Paul. Timer blocked links to the New York Post Joe and Hunter Biden exposé and locked accounts that shared it.
But let's just assume we both dislike the editorial policies of Twitter. A pretty safe assumption, I think :)
Will spamming Twitter via a network of TLS proxies do anything to change their editorial policy to something more preferable to you or I?
Will setting up a network of TLS proxies to Signal give Iranians access to Signal?
Perhaps the answer to those two questions will give some indication as to what the practical (and moral) differences are.
For my two pence. I think anyone should be allowed to use a phone for any purpose, and I accept that a tap-proof phone can be used to commit crimes. I don't think Osama Bin Laden should be able to take out a page in the new york times to give his hot take on his "hugely successful" WTC attacks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these examples map directly to the point in hand, but I am just pointing out that they are different media and the balance between freedom of speech and public decency are struck differently and that tactics for finding political solutions to censorship in each case might look different, too.