Hl enabling it to effectively shield the developers from further “crusading.” But, whether this is the case, as one state’s example implies, or if the risk of a fiscal crisis is too great to justify filtering out oligarchs — whether automating censorship is a sign that our culture is on the right path — we need new formulas for how to effectively manage technologies that influence public discussion.
Here is my take on the subject. As the anarchist anti-censors said, those dangerous things which are put in place produce dangerous consequences. Let’s not let that be the case in this case.
Increasingly, technology creates desires that by themselves are not desirable. Companies that fail to keep their information freely available and honest will be at increased risk of being blamed and punished if they retain such things as the “national security state” that they don’t like. If they don't like it, if they want it to be as good as possible for everybody, they need to eliminate those restrictions, or else they will be caught or forced out.
This leaves no room for real freedom and democracy. We need new tools for managing technologies whose main purpose is to check their freedom and for creating rules that work for everyone.
So, what are we going to do about it?
First and foremost, we need a general understanding of what anarchists believe in. That is, what makes anarchism and anarchistic ideas compelling, what do they entail?
If we want this to be taken seriously, we will need to know enough about our ideology to make sure we are not misunderstanding where we stand.
A working definition of anarchy is to be able to define our ideologies clearly, just, and without prejudice. This definition must clear up any misunderstandings.
Is anarcho-capitalism compatible with anything? Yes and no. There are many anarchosyndicalists who have argued that it is perfectly possible to be an anarchie. It’s something which is contradictory to a capitalist system, yet it is within a capitalism which is made up of many individuals and, eventually, many non-individuals.
We should b