Is surveillance risk chilling your online speech?

Mass online surveillance has destroyed my dream and passion of participating and contributing to a free personal higher quality internet. To be specific, running my own websites, and participating in public forums.

I feel forever stuck in a never ending dilemma.

It is difficult to get to own a domain and a webserver that is not tied to oneself. Cryptocurrency gives options, but I have no clue how to acquire it without it being tied to me. Buying crypto through credit card is seen as capital investment in my country, and it is on you to prove to the tax agency if it was not the case.

One may ask, what is my threat model? What am I so scared about? To me, it feels like giving up. It is the principle of mass surveillance and tracking being against my values, purpose and passion. I want to share with the world, but I don't want it forcefully tied to my real identity.

I feel okay sharing what I have made with friends and real people that I meet. But I do not feel okay being forced to share to mass automated surveillance. The thought of going through the airport of e.g. America, and immediately, my interests, my way of thinking, what I like, what I don't like, what I know and what I don't know, is being tied to my identity in real time is uncomfortable.

And even assuming that I own the infrastructure without it being tied to me, there is the threat of stylometry. I will be writing a lot of text, and that will be possible to tie directly to me. Using AI to transcribe or change my stylometric fingerprint destroys the way I want to express myself, the words are no longer my own. This worry, of leaking my stylometric fingerprint, is also the reason I barely at all use AI, when I do, I obfuscate how I express myself.

Maybe one day I will care less. It perhaps has a big hint of maladaptive perfectionism. I developed OCD two years ago, with my obsessions being focused on taking risk. That does not change the fact, that it heavily has impacted me and the way I am expressing myself freely on the internet.

I think it's unclear whether the Brendan Eich case "worked out" or not, depending on what exactly your stance is with respect to his original political donation, and what you think about the trajectory of his career after he was forced to resign from Mozilla. I certainly know queer activist types who are not happy that he is still in tech, and still the CEO of a browser company.

The guy in that case was sentenced for attempting to hide evidence that might show that his wife was associated with an activist group that had vandalized an ICE facility and shot a cop who came to investigate. It's possible that this is in fact an overreach of existing laws defining what counts as attempts to conceal or destroy evidence in court cases, but the legal justification for the prosecution was grounded in evidence and court procedure law for a legitimate prosecution (it is good to legally prosecute people who vandalize government facilities and then shoot cops who come to investigate; unless you genuinely support completely overthrowing the local government and replacing it with a different one through violence), not based on the political content of the pamphlets.

> Look at the state department's recent report that labels everything from the DSA to the Black Lives Matter movement as secret agents of Cuba [3].

Is it incorrect that secret agents of Cuba have attempted to increase the influence of American leftist movements like the DSA and Black Lives Matter? That seems plausible to me; and it doesn't contradict the proposition that there's also substantial organic domestic support for these movements by people who are generally unaware of or unconcerned with Cuban intelligence involement; or that it is and should be legal to voice support for domestic political movements in general even if some foreign intelligence agency thinks it's in its interest to also support the same movement.