Not long ago, the libertarian community began actively discussing the “Prospera” project – a charter city in Honduras. The idea of charter cities in general is quite popular among libertarians, many of whom view the option of autonomous jurisdictions and free economic zones, carved out from the jurisdiction of a state, as a real possibility for achieving a free society.
Regardless of the dreams associated with ideas of this kind, they shatter in the same way that the idea of seasteading and the creation of jurisdictions outside state territories in general shatters (you can find more details on this in the material “Why you should not count on the creation of new jurisdictions in the ocean or space”). If violence is still a current tool for achieving goals and the newly minted jurisdiction has no means of deterring an external attack (let’s be honest: for a small charter city against a giant stationary bandit, the only deterrent weapon could be WMDs like viruses), then its autonomy is merely an unsupported handout from the master. Seriously, how can one even expect to create a free jurisdiction by the grace of a stationary bandit (the “state”)?
Of course, I do not dispute that at a certain point in time, there may be people in the government of a specific state who are absolutely not opposed to such initiatives and are willing to allocate territory for them on terms of maximum autonomy and the ability to independently manage internal affairs, even up to the creation of their own laws and law enforcement mechanisms. But such power, like any other power, cannot be eternal. In any case, sooner or later, changes will occur in the government, and where are the guarantees that the new power will not want to liquidate such autonomy, or at least begin to reduce it in small steps so as not to cause excessive discontent with abrupt decisions? For example, as the Chinese government did with Hong Kong? Agreements themselves, in this case, will not help; the government may simply not care about them. History already has hundreds and thousands of examples of free cities and broad autonomies of various kinds, and where are they all now—did agreements with the central government help them?
Of course, representatives of such an autonomy could create their own political force and use it to lobby their interests in the central government. However, in doing so, they only involve themselves in another struggle for power over the tool of state violence. And this is a movement in a direction completely opposite to achieving a free, non-violent society. Factually, this is the same as simply changing the power in order to forcibly impose one’s own norms on society—this cannot be linked to libertarianism in any way.
Hoping for the mercy of the master is a foolish venture. Without the elimination of violence as a phenomenon in general, or at least without the presence of deterrent weapons, an autonomy carved out by a stationary bandit is worth nothing and is backed by nothing. And if such means are available, then perhaps it makes more sense to exit the jurisdiction of the stationary bandit in some developed place, for example, within a large city, rather than on bare land where one would still have to spend billions of dollars creating infrastructure and attracting people?
Without this mindset, we will never become a developed country, and this time the problem does not lie with the state at all. It is much broader. This also applies to some libertarians, as without adopting the philosophy described below, we will never overcome the stationary bandit!
“A very important point is the tolerance for failure. That is, failing in the Valley is not a disgrace. If I am reviewing resumes and a person comes to an interview and says, ‘I failed a startup and now I’m looking for a job,’ or, say, ‘I’ve had two serious failures,’ I don’t look at it as, ‘Oh damn, I don’t want that,’ but rather as the fact that they have the experience of failure, and therefore they are more valuable than someone who has never failed. He’s a guy with experience. And moreover, a guy who has proven that after a failure, he can get up and move forward. This is super important because in what you do here, failure is practically a mandatory part of the game. You fail constantly because you are constantly trying new crazy ideas. If you aren’t failing, it means you are being too risk-averse. This is very important.”
And the last thing that, in my opinion, probably strongly affects not only business but society itself is, in principle, acceptance, tolerance for the crazy, the unfamiliar, the unusual, all sorts of crazy stuff. Because in reality, all cool ideas are crazy at first. If you cannot accept people who dress differently than you like, or behave differently than you like, or something like that, then most likely such a society will not support some new crazy idea, like: ‘Let’s make a social network where everyone has real names and they share photos there.’ This idea, when Facebook was starting, seemed crazy. Nobody used their real names on the internet. But venture capitalists believe and give money precisely because they are accustomed to the idea that crazy ideas are good. And they know that they can fail.”
When viruses are considered weapons of mass destruction, many say that this is merely a hypothetical threat, impossible to implement in practice at the moment, unlikely to be implementable in the near future, and certainly never available for recreation by small organizations and ordinary people in home conditions. And since other possible weapons of mass destruction are even more inaccessible for recreation, there is no need to fear such a phenomenon as violence and try to eradicate it completely.
First of all, we need to look at the trends in the development of biotechnology. A great example is provided by an operation such as sequencing (in simpler terms, decoding) the genome. Just 20 years ago, sequencing one full human genome cost 100 million dollars, about 10 years ago – 1 million dollars, and now – 1 thousand dollars. Also, there are already quite cheap DNA/RNA synthesizers; some models can be bought for several tens of thousands of dollars, and it is quite expected that over time and with the development of technology, they will only become cheaper and more accessible. Furthermore, research has recently appeared regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence in solving quantum chemistry equations [1][2]. In the future, this will make it possible to determine the chemical and physical properties of molecules without conducting real tests, but only by virtually modeling their structure. I think it is obvious that this will greatly simplify the design of artificial viruses. And finally, let us not forget that modern vaccination and targeted treatment are based precisely on the introduction of artificial viral agents into humans, which deliver specific genetic material to the required cells and embed it into them. Factually, this is gene therapy, the reality of the technological implementation of which many for some reason also view skeptically and do not see prospects for its development and application in the near future. But do you still believe that the creation of dangerous artificial viruses is merely a hypothetical threat? Well, let’s look at real cases of this.
In 2011, virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka conducted experiments to create a flu vaccine. He tried to recreate the strain of the virus that preceded the 2009-2010 epidemic to see how the virus had changed over 4 years. As a result, he modified it so that it became resistant to human immunity [3]. Naturally, his work began to be criticized, as humanity would have been powerless if this virus had left the laboratory walls. Additionally, the US government imposed a ban on the continuation of this research in 2014 (however, it was lifted in 2019). Moreover, Yoshihiro Kawaoka had previously managed to create a laboratory analog of the well-known Spanish flu, which killed up to 100 million people according to various estimates.
Also in 2018, a group of Canadian researchers published a scientific paper on recreating the causative agent of the horsepox virus – a close relative of smallpox (variola), one of the deadliest diseases in human history [4]. The cost of this project is estimated at approximately 100 thousand dollars. In doing so, the researchers sought to create a new, even safer vaccine against smallpox. However, a significant portion of the scientific community viewed this research critically and began to express indignation as to why the scientific journal PLOS One allowed the publication of such work at all, as this could help terrorists in creating biological weapons.
Along with all this, we should consider cases where viruses accidentally left laboratory walls and what consequences this led to, in order to understand what we will face if someone wants to release a dangerous virus into the wild intentionally. Moreover, this could already be done by some laboratory assistant at any research center that stores and studies samples of such viruses. We have simply been very lucky that none of these lab assistants had violent tendencies, or if they did, something held them back or they did not realize what dangerous weapon was in their hands. We will list 5 such cases [5]:
– In 1977, the H1N1 flu strain managed to escape from a Chinese institution and spread across the world. Fortunately, it caused only a mild illness and led to only a few fatal cases.
– From 1963 to 1978, three escapes of the smallpox virus occurred in the UK from two different laboratories. They were linked to low standards and poorly conducted laboratory practice. The smallpox outbreaks led to at least 80 fatal cases.
– In 1995, 10,000 people in Venezuela and 75,000 people in Colombia fell ill with a VEE strain that escaped from a laboratory. As a result of the outbreak, 311 people died, and neurological complications were found in 3,000 people.
– Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 led to a global epidemic that infected 8,000 people and caused 774 deaths in 29 countries. Since the original epidemic, six escapes of the virus from laboratories have occurred – four in Beijing and one each in Singapore and Taiwan.
– In 2007, 278 animals in the UK were infected with foot-and-mouth disease after the virus escaped from a high-biosafety laboratory. Due to the outbreak, 1,578 animals had to be destroyed. This outbreak undermined agricultural production and exports in the UK and cost approximately 200 million pounds sterling.
Let’s also look at the current viral situation. In 2020-21, we had to deal with the coronavirus (by the way, this is one of the strains of the same SARS that left laboratory walls in 2003). Compared to other viruses, SARS-CoV-2 is not excessively contagious or deadly; to date, about 103 million people have had it, which is 1.3% of the planet’s population; about 2.2 million people died – 2.1% of all infected. Nevertheless, the pandemic led to a large number of social and economic problems.
We should also look at other modern viral threats besides the coronavirus. One such example could be the “Nipah” virus. The disease can be asymptomatic (in which case the person simply becomes a spreader of the infection) or cause serious respiratory problems, encephalitis, cerebral edema, and mortality ranging from 40% to 75%. Furthermore, Dutch researchers claim that a Nipah outbreak could happen at any moment [6]. And what could happen if a sample of such a virus fell into the hands of a person with violent inclinations?
Besides all this, the topic of the viral threat is already being raised by some well-known and authoritative figures, for example, entrepreneur and billionaire Bill Gates [7]. Back in 2015, he predicted a pandemic and warned that the world was not ready for it. He explains this lack of readiness by the fact that large pandemics occur quite rarely, people forget about them and prefer to concentrate their attention on fighting more frequent disasters. A pandemic generally always seems like something that definitely will not happen in the next few years, therefore its threat is ignored. Bill Gates also expressed concern that viruses could be used for violent purposes and estimated the probability of an artificial pandemic to be higher than that of a natural one. Now let’s imagine such a scenario – someone intentionally releases a very contagious and deadly virus into the wild, and humanity is not ready for it at all?
I think there should be no more doubts that the creation of artificial viruses is a real task, which over time is becoming less expensive and more accessible for implementation. It may even not be necessary to create new viruses – it is enough to seize and use samples of already existing ones. Therefore, it is critically important for us to get rid of violence before the moment when someone, in an attempt to protect themselves from attacks, or some terrorist in pursuit of their violent goals, releases a very contagious and deadly virus into the wild, thereby bringing humanity to catastrophe.
Very foolish is the conservative who implements their dreams of ethnic purity and a traditional order of life through state violence in a mandatory manner toward the entire society. But a progressivist who uses this same method to promote a multicultural and LGBT agenda will be equally foolish. This is because, regardless of which ideas are promoted by this method, one must constantly use and maintain the instruments of violence in a state of “combat readiness.”
But power is never eternal. There is no method to leave power in the hands of one interest group forever, simply because different groups always exist within society. And when one of these groups gains enough strength and popularity to remove the previous group from power, the previous interests are removed along with them.
To make this clearer, let’s ask a question as an example, considering the current state of affairs in the Western world. European and American conservatives are extremely dissatisfied that their children are forced to study multiculturalism in schools and are taught tolerance toward LGBT. Sometimes it even goes as far as conservative parents having their children taken away by social services if they decide to shield them from such education. They are also dissatisfied that their funds are taken through taxation to provide aid and additional privileges to minorities and immigrants.
But who is to blame for this? The progressivists? Perhaps, as they are using the tools of force. But the conservatives themselves are also to blame. This is because they supported and nurtured the instrument of violence. And why be surprised that this instrument simply passed into the hands of other interest groups over time? What should conservatives be surprised about after they had previously killed, imprisoned, or forcibly treated those very same LGBT representatives, and then their children began to be mandatorily taught tolerance toward values of this kind? If conservatives had gotten rid of the instrument of violence, not used it to pursue their goals, then no one would have been able to to impose their orders upon them. Yes, the proponents of multiculturalism and LGBT representatives, whom they hate so strongly, would still exist. But they would not be able to force them how to live.
The moral of this story can be expressed by a single parable: you reap what you sow! If you sow violence, you yourself will become its victim; it is inevitable. Never count on the instrument of violence being yours and only yours. It is better not to facilitate the development of such an instrument—then no one will be able to use it against you.
I constantly hear criticism regarding the idea of eliminating aggressive violence from society using biotechnologies (the development of gene therapy). Skeptics argue that the propensity for violence is very complex, determined by many genes, and that identifying them is impossible. In reality, this is true, but only if one looks specifically for “violence propensity” genes, although this is absolutely unnecessary to solve the task at hand. Lorenz’s research describes the evolutionary path through which many animal species developed an “innate morality” of non-aggression toward members of their own species (in fact, this is not morality in the usual philosophical sense, but a behavioral instinct). For some reason, many have overlooked this, but Konrad Lorenz clearly indicates in his works that species with innate morality experience a strong feeling of aversion (i.e., a certain aggression-inhibiting mechanism is triggered) when they intend to cause harm to the body of a conspecific (for simplicity, we will henceforth call this the “Lorenz mechanism” after the discoverer). This contrasts sharply with the layman’s understanding of “propensity for violence.” For example, hedgehogs are quite aggressive in the conventional sense (since they are predators), but are incapable of causing physical harm to their own kind.
Although Lorenz himself wrote that in humans “innate morality” is very weak, nevertheless, its presence can be noticed in a significant part of society, perhaps even in the majority. You have probably noticed scenes in movies where someone wanted to take revenge for some offense, picked up a weapon, approached the unarmed offender, pointed the gun at them, but suddenly the attacker’s hands began to shake, they felt ill, and they could not fire. This is the behavioral pattern of species with a strong version of the Lorenz mechanism, but in humans, it is quite variable (unlike, for example, hedgehogs and snakes, where all individuals in the population have a strong version of this mechanism due to the pressure of natural selection). Accordingly, this trait is determined by alleles of one or several genes (different forms of the same gene located in the same sections of chromosomes). Given the high degree of variability of the strong/weak version of the Lorenz mechanism in different people, identifying the specific genes and the correct (desired) alleles is quite simple, even at the current technological level.
A rough research plan can be outlined. Activists openly demonstrate provocative behavior, for example, by showing their commitment to LGBT in places where homophobes are usually present, insulting them, but, importantly, not using any physical violence against them. If it is evident that a person is deeply offended by the insult, but nevertheless simply walks away (the ideal version is that they intended to strike but ultimately could not), we inform them that it was a scientific experiment, tell them they did well to restrain themselves, and take a DNA sample from them, marking it as “peaceful.” If, however, they attempt to hit the activist, we immediately stop the attack using pepper spray and take a DNA sample, marking it as “aggressor.” We repeat this numerous times to create samples of sufficient size.
Next, we send the collected materials to a laboratory for DNA decoding (sequencing). It could be to Silicon Valley — some of the numerous biotech startups there will surely be happy to receive the samples we have collected, as they cannot collect DNA samples in such an “aggressive” manner within California itself. Based on the comparison of the two samples, the specific genes responsible for the strength of the Lorenz mechanism and the required alleles (encoding the strong version) are identified. Once identified, it would be possible, for example, to create gene therapy for adults and a genetic test for pregnant women (which would make the woman seriously consider whether it is worth continuing the pregnancy).
I often hear objections against agorism, crypto-anarchism, Bitcoin, darknet platforms, TOR, VPNs, and everything else that allows for fighting the stationary bandit (“the state”) using non-violent methods online. Critics argue that it is easy for the state to ban and block all of this.
Indeed, purely theoretically, the state is capable of blocking all this with a flick of a finger, but as always, the ratio of benefit to cost comes into play. Currently, network connectivity is so high that blocking a single IP address, protocol, or even a specific DPI signature will inevitably lead to collateral damage.
Roskomnadzor (RKN) tried to block Telegram, but eventually abandoned the idea because as a result of the blocking attempts, completely different services stopped working: online stores, payment processing for MasterCard, courier services, and even the Odnoklassniki website. Banning VPNs won’t work either—they are used by companies. Banning them for individuals while allowing them for companies sounds like complete madness—the appearance of 140 million legal entities in Russia would be a DDoS attack on the entire bureaucratic system. Could they create a powerful firewall with DPI “like in China”? Also not an option—all halfway decent VPN services provide tools to bypass it.
Some might mention whitelists, where all resources are blocked except those permitted. That won’t work either—a great deal of imported industrial and medical equipment requires network access to connect to the manufacturer’s servers. Talking about “import substitution” for equipment of this class is simply laughable. And let’s be honest, the authorities need to develop their own next “wonder-weapons,” and for that, they need access to many different “pirate” resources like Sci-Hub, where scientific articles from foreign publications are posted.
An objection also occasionally slips in that the state can simply intimidate crypto-anarchists with repression in real life. In reality, you can only intimidate some random guy playing a “pirated” version of Call of Duty. Ideological fighters against the stationary bandit, which is what most agorists and crypto-anarchists are, will quickly find ways to bypass surveillance and blocks. They will only become more resentful of the state and, instead of innocent internet mischief, will move toward developing tangible tools to deter the aggression of tyranny, such as drones, blinding lasers, and even weapons of mass destruction, since they have plenty of skills.
So it turns out that while blocking the activities of crypto-anarchists is theoretically possible, in practice it would result, for example, in the failure of tomographs and life-support systems in hospitals, along with the shutdown of many industrial enterprises and the collapse of the economy. Will the state take on such costs? I don’t think so!
First, I want to share with you a rather interesting piece of material regarding the topic of violence and private property titled “The Political Concept of Freedom“. The author argues that property rights always have a violent origin, as violence must be applied to maintain them.
Before providing my commentary, I will note in advance that we are considering both the private property rights of individuals and companies (supported by the right-libertarians) as well as collective property rights formed within voluntary associations (supported by the left-libertarians). However, we dismiss the situation in which property rights do not exist at all, because in such a state of affairs, it would be impossible to organize any effective redistribution of resources to solve various tasks, since then absolutely anyone could take any resource from anyone else at any moment regardless of the circumstances.
If the matter concerns the protection of immediate property, which you use frequently or are holding in your hands right now, there is no problem in maintaining it—you would have to be attacked with physical harm (or at least with a non-zero probability of such harm) for it to be taken. If violence as a phenomenon has not yet been eradicated from society, then you can quite reasonably use means of self-defense. By the way, they do not even have to be lethal; they could be pepper sprays, stun guns, ultra/infrasound. It will be sufficient to inflict only very unpleasant sensations on the aggressor, without long-term physical consequences, to force them to let go of your bag or leave the house. If violence has been eradicated, then simply no one will attack you.
1) A contract within a contractual jurisdiction (CJ), under which the CJ will make certain efforts to prevent the violation of your property rights. The most obvious option for real estate is a contract between the CJ and utility providers (electricity, gas, water) regarding their disconnection in case of squatting or non-payment of rent. 2) Physical fencing of property with a fence and an access control system: a barrier, a door with an electronic lock. 3) For situational protection, when the owner wants to prevent anyone from entering their territory (for example, angry workers who want to seize a factory), a guard at the entrance or a human chain. 4) For any items containing electronic components (from planes, yachts, and cars to household appliances, phones, and headphones), blocking use without entering an access code, retina scan, fingerprint, or RFID tag. 5) Network-based reputation systems (available globally via the internet), where violators of private property can be listed, which would lead to denial of service, boycott, or ostracism. 6) A system of options. This is already widespread in Silicon Valley IT companies. The hired employee is financially interested in the success of the enterprise; they will profit from the growth of the company’s capitalization and are not interested in stealing the employer’s property, as under the terms of the contract, these options will be forfeited in the event of illegal actions by the employee.
As we can see, the protection of property does not necessarily require violence, except perhaps in the case of the immediate seizure of property that you are using at that moment; however, this is already an aggressive attack on you, in which case self-defense is permissible. Property rights and violence are not necessarily one and the same.
The idea of seasteading—creating contractual jurisdictions on floating platforms or artificial islands in international waters—seems like a quite interesting solution to the problem of having to submit to monopolistic and violent stationary bandits in the form of states. And the colonization of celestial bodies beyond Earth is a necessity without which humanity cannot survive in the long term. However, these options cannot be relied upon as a real possibility to escape the stationary bandit as long as they still exist and are capable and willing to use violence.
Remember: if you can get somewhere, then the stationary bandit can get there too. This has already been demonstrated by the examples of the Republic of Minerva, Liberland, and a floating platform near the shores of Thailand. In all these cases, the attempt to escape the state ended in its invasion. Additionally, various remote weapons can be used against you, such as missile strikes. This is the easiest way for authorities to get rid of a remote, disobedient jurisdiction without exposing themselves to any risks.
One should also not forget another fact. Creating jurisdictions remote from the rest of the world entails enormous costs; such jurisdictions are difficult to develop and are unattractive to many people due to the unavailability or high cost of many goods.
In order to protect themselves from the encroachments of stationary bandits, people who decide to leave their jurisdiction need certain means of deterrence and self-defense. Free people must be armed; furthermore, they must have the ability to threaten any potential aggressors with unacceptable damage. In modern conditions, the most accessible means of deterrence of this type could be samples of dangerous viruses—by threatening to release them, one could force state leaders to leave you alone. But regardless of which means of deterrence and self-defense is chosen, it is easiest to apply if one does not try to run as far as possible from the stationary bandit; otherwise, they will, again, be able to destroy you with remote weaponry without any risks to themselves. Let us also not forget the ethical point—viruses are indiscriminate WMDs capable of affecting the entire population of the planet, including those not involved in the government’s aggressive actions. The use of such weapons completely contradicts libertarian ethics, and without such weapons of deterrence, the stationary bandit will sooner or later reach your CJ, even if it is located on Mars. Such is realpolitik.
In the end, we have the following: a remote jurisdiction can certainly be reached for the purpose of subjugation, it can be quite easily destroyed remotely, and life in it is unattractive to most people. Considering all this, the most profitable strategy is to strive for the achievement of a free society where you are right now, or, if you still like the idea of settling previously unoccupied lands, you should choose among the most accessible, comfortable, and economically advantageous territorial plots, rather than among islands in the ocean or space objects. To secure your intentions, you need to use various means of deterrence and self-defense—then no one will be able to continue imposing their violent power on you. The creation of remote jurisdictions, for example in the oceans or space, is a task that can be undertaken after the possibility of current stationary bandits applying violence has been eliminated, so as not to fear invasion or remote destruction on their part.
Comment by Alexander Tatarkov:
If you blackmail the state with a viral attack in case of aggression, then it is logical to organize your stateless territory precisely in the capitals!
For example, declare a specific micro-district to be free.
The logic is this: they definitely will not bomb their own capital. Meanwhile, in case of aggression against the free territory by the state, it is much easier to poison their reservoirs.
As for the idea of moving to the end of the world, as Svetov propagated—the story of the “Order of the Solar Temple” is a typical example. It would seem that they didn’t harm the state, moved to a remote wilderness that you can’t find on maps, didn’t even refuse to pay taxes, and made no demands…
For the state, the very fact of their existence was grounds for a punitive operation. They need no other reasons!
P.S. We are not calling for the use of a virus; this is an idea by Alexander Rozov, which at least looks realistic compared to the naive dreams of seasteaders, even if it is extremely inhumane. We always advocate for the option of eradicating aggressive violence as such, then there will be no problem of creating a CJ!
There is an argument that fighting a phenomenon such as violence will in no way help eliminate our current hierarchy of dominance and the monopoly on power. Firstly, many doubt that methods against violence can be applied to the leaders of the dominance hierarchy—they work in closed office buildings, travel in armored cars, and their homes are cordoned off by security, meaning there is no way to approach or reach them. Secondly, they may be people who are not themselves prone to committing acts of violence. Perhaps some of them are intellectuals, incapable of even hitting someone lightly, and they have no need for it anyway, since an entire army of pawns, already prone to violence, does all the dirty work for them. Sometimes the second argument is even considered alleged proof that the problem of the dominance hierarchy and monopoly power does not stem from violence.
To refute this argument, we must always remember exactly this army of pawns. Behind political leaders stand the security structures in which many agents work. And it is these agents who enter into direct contact with us; it is through them that all orders given from above are carried out. The cause of our problems and the goal of our activity is the elimination of their violent nature. Looking at it realistically, we cannot stop the leader of the dominance hierarchy, liquidate him during self-defense during a direct attack, or even in the future, with the development of technology, inject him with a gene therapy needle. But this may be completely unnecessary and even useless given that he himself may be a person not prone to committing acts of violence. However, we will always be able to apply all these measures to his servants, since they, again, enter into direct contact with us when applying aggressive violence against us.
As soon as all the pawns are stopped or liquidated in the process of self-defense against their attack, their leader will simply lose his power; he will no longer be able to realize any aspirations toward us. That is precisely why it is sufficient to work only with the violence of the pawns who enter into direct contact with us; without them, the leader of the dominance hierarchy is absolutely worthless!
Against the backdrop of recent blockings of conservative groups and resources by Western corporations, as well as in view of longer-standing claims against me regarding my calls to participate in the blocking of propagandist Vladimir Solovyov’s YouTube channel, I would like to express my, and in general the libertarian/voluntarist, position regarding freedom of speech.
As we know, the idea of voluntarism is to eradicate any manifestation of violence and coercive force in relationships between people, that is, to achieve a state of maximum freedom of activity, agreement, and association. It can be said immediately that the blocking of content of any kind by any platform is not a violent act, and therefore it is not something that a voluntarist can oppose. However, in the modern world, a situation has arisen where large social platforms are heavily dependent on states; they are in close cooperation with them (especially with police and intelligence services), and also frequently receive monopoly privileges and subsidies from them. Effectively, they operate to some extent using tax funds taken from people, and as long as this remains true, many believe they can be nothing other than public services to which freedom of speech should apply in an absolute (or nearly absolute, with minor caveats) degree. I also frequently encounter the opinion that even in a free society, pressure must be exerted on any large social platforms so that they also support full freedom of speech.
However, let us not forget that the main problem for us is violence. It must be fought. And in the course of this struggle, the dissemination and popularization of violent ideas must under no circumstances be allowed, as this will only provoke new acts of violence, which will lead to many negative externalities (about which I have spoken a lot in the materials of my channel and public page) and may eventually turn into a total catastrophe for us all (someone, wishing to solve their problems through violence, might even use weapons of mass destruction, for example, by releasing a very dangerous virus).
Understanding this will allow us to formulate an answer regarding what policy should be applied now on so-called public social platforms, and what is necessary when exerting pressure (except for forceful pressure, which is obviously unacceptable) on any platforms of this kind in general. And that is: freedom of speech is permissible in all cases except for cases of calls to violence.
Ideas based on coercive imposition should not be allowed for publication on such platforms. People who call for the initiation of violence against anyone should be blocked; general ostracism can also be applied to them until they decide to renounce violent aspirations. Calls for the punishment of people by state authorities are also unacceptable, since such punishments are implemented by forceful methods. Of course, this does not apply to calls for self-defense by any means in the event of the initiation of violence by an aggressor, as this action is aimed at stopping an act of violence already being committed and eliminating the associated negative externalities.
Conclusion: violent people must be subjected to ostracism, and violent ideas must not be allowed for publication and dissemination on social platforms. Pressure (of course, non-violent) must also be exerted on any social platforms to achieve the blocking of people and materials that call for violence. In the case of materials of another nature, everything is settled privately: each platform decides for itself what to publish and what not, and each person decides whether to use a particular platform and whether to introduce personal sanctions against it if they do not like the content published there.
