I refuse to accept a censored Internet. Join Me at FOSDEM 27

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Concerns over a “censored internet” are expanding beyond authoritarian firewalls to include platform moderation, ISP- and state-level blocking, financial deplatforming, and the dominance of a few tech giants that shape what most people see online. Commenters debate where to draw the line between legitimate content moderation and censorship, how much users themselves now demand suppression of opposing views, and whether Western democracies are meaningfully better than China or Russia on this front. Alongside critiques of commercialization and propaganda, many point to technical and social alternatives—mesh networks, Reticulum, Tor, old-school personal sites, and community-driven tools—as partial ways to reclaim a more open, resilient network.

Scope of “Censored Internet”

  • Several participants argue the core problem is not only state blocking, but also:
    • Platform-level moderation and deplatforming.
    • Commercial and algorithmic control of what people see.
    • Bandwidth and attention being crowded out by low‑value or AI‑generated content.
  • Others contend the dominant issue is propaganda and advertising economics, not classic censorship.

Censorship vs Moderation vs Infrastructure Control

  • Many distinguish:
    • Government censorship (backed by force, no realistic opt‑out).
    • Platform moderation (you can in theory switch platforms, but network effects make this hard).
    • Social moderation (communities choosing their own norms).
  • Some say moderation is inherently a form of censorship; others define censorship more narrowly as state action.
  • Examples discussed: DNS blocking, court-ordered ISP blocks, platform bans, payment processors refusing service.

Centralization and Platform Power

  • Widespread concern that a few big platforms and infrastructure providers effectively control online speech.
  • Even if “the internet” is open, discovery and distribution are channeled through a small set of apps and CDNs.
  • Mobile OS vendors’ control over which apps are allowed is seen as another choke point.

Alternative Networks and Technical Workarounds

  • Proposals include mesh networks (Wi‑Fi, LoRa, CJDNS, Reticulum), optical links, radio, Starlink, and overlay networks.
  • Skeptics note:
    • Physical layers are easy to regulate, jam, or physically detect at scale.
    • Mesh networks hit hard scaling, capacity, and incentive problems; participation can be dangerous under harsh regimes.
  • Others cite existing community meshes and projects (VPN stacks, obfuscation techniques) as partial, local successes.

Generational and Cultural Attitudes to Free Speech

  • Several claim many people now prefer censorship that aligns with their politics; free‑speech norms have weakened.
  • Disagreement over whether younger generations are unusually tolerant of censorship/violence, or whether similar patterns existed for previous generations at the same age.

“Uncensored Space” Paradox

  • Unmoderated platforms tend to become havens for abusive, extremist, or illegal content, driving away most users.
  • Some argue any viable community must exclude certain behavior, meaning fully “uncensored” spaces are either unsustainable or extremely unpleasant.

Reactions to FOSDEM and the Talk Framing

  • Many praise FOSDEM as a high‑quality, community‑driven, fun conference, though overcrowded.
  • Several criticize the talk’s focus on Russia/China/Iran while underplaying censorship and control in “Western” countries and by Western corporations.