This is already a mostly solved problem. There are lots and lots of places on the internet, when I can engage in speech and it won't be censored.
Yes, the big platforms might censor you, but there are still lots and lots of small platforms that won't or can't.
A lot of people in the US don't seem to realize how extreme we are as a country when it comes to free speech. We fetishize free speech in a way that I feel is not healthy. I don't think any country's laws are perfect in this regard, but all the other western democracies seem to be just fine with their laws against things like hate speech. I don't see how the US allowing hate speech is beneficial to the country or its people.
This opinion tends to be an unpopular on HN and I figured I would meet the original OP on their terms.
If mere functioning is your goal for the country, then certainly countries without strong free speech protections can function. They can even function without democracy at all.
But most people want more for their country.
Western democracies with weaker free speech protections do function, but they also have a substantial pressure outlet in the form of websites hosted in other countries that don't kowtow to oppressive governments.
It's not implemented well enough to detect the fine differences between western countries.
Hate speech laws reduce the range of discourse. They suppress dissent. That's inherently undemocratic.
Relegating that permissiveness to a particular entity allows that subjectivity to be enforced in perverse ways.
Many people feel it is better to tolerate the objectionable and hurtful speech than to allow a 3rd party to use subjective judgment to censor.
>Bitcoin et al. are a very real promise that the future of banking and finance and money will be decentralized. Which as far as I'm concerned, is about freedom as much as speech is. You don't have any freedom if you have to beg VISA or PayPal for permission to spend your money.
The moral high ground you are trying to claim in your second argument is undercut by your first argument. If this was all about freedom, we would see similar sized investments in open and decentralized platforms focused on free speech. The reason we aren't seeing that is obvious. It is much easier to see a path to profitability in the cryptocurrency space.
Most cryptocurrency investments aren't about freedom, they are about carving out a piece of the pie from the existing financial services industry. There is nothing immoral about turning a profit, just be open about it. It is dishonest for cryptocurrency investors to claim their intent is to save the world especially considering how much electricity and therefore fossil fuels some of the popular cryptocurrencies waste.
Sell the tech on its own merits and accomplishments. There is a reason why the "making the world a better place" pitches have been parodied for years.