11–13 of 13 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It's not. Why would you think it would be?
Because those people do not have access to something that someone is stating as censorship resistant, when in fact not having access to the funds to pay for something is in fact suppressing people with alternative views that cannot otherwise participate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because those people do not have access to something that someone is stating as censorship resistant, when in fact not having access to the funds to pay for something is in fact suppressing people with alternative views that cannot otherwise participate.
How about read-only free; comment-cost? Would that be fair? That way truth can permeate their world, but shaping it requires payment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because those people do not have access to something that someone is stating as censorship resistant, when in fact not having access to the funds to pay for something is in fact suppressing people with alternative views that cannot otherwise participate.
How about read-only free; comment-cost? Would that be fair? That way truth can permeate their world, but shaping it requires payment?