To assume restricting the use of VPN by the words "look at steps that it shouldn’t be circumvented" is quiet a stretch.

I doupt heavily anyone could find majorities to push such laws.

Where is the issue exactly?
People can pay for their services. When a merchant sees, that people cheat on them, they will may search a solution.

But is it probable, that merchants should be cheated oftenly? I doupt it. Like in every supermarket it is possible to steal things.

But everyone knows that it is illegal and some percentage of stolen goods will be not discovered. This is not a problem for the supermarkets to sustain. Zero failure opportunity is not needed for an economy to work. It just should not fail too much.

Maby a good idea. Maby also lead by very questionable figures. The biggest funder is a proud investor for the Trump Coin.

Will librelanders uphold political freedoms as well? Or is the goal to create a egocentric neoliberal dream?

Regarding, that concepts as the neoliberal trickle down effect have been proofe wrong, I highly doubt, this is the way to go.

But also clear is that this project will go towards the most active ideas around this place. And I would defnitly not dismiss it yet.

But much of the fascination seen in this documentary seems to be on conserving money at all cost. As if we coul eat the money. I hope philosophers will find their way to libreland.

I think normal identification is possible to do within the frame of humanrights. To hold someone accountable for his actions and in order for contracts to work.

I welcome every society of the present and the future, that comes with less control. And I think we nostriches could be coming forward with better ideas.

I totally support the idea of selfdeclaration of identity. But until there is a society, that works with this principle, there is no real proof of concept. This means we can not know if it will work.

But when you know a project, that delivers evidence for selfdeclaring identity to work, I am very happy to read.

You try to provoke. But just know not enough about Mandela, when you look at him as an illegitimate terrorist.

When a regime that goes against humanrights calls someone a terrorist, it simply is an opinion.

W. Bush defnitly was a terrorist, when he started the war against Afghanistan.
Putin defnitly is a terrorist for all his offensive wars against Georgia, Syria and Ukraine.

Benjamin Netanjahu defnitly qualifies as a terrorist, with the current violations agains gazas citizens.

Clearly this list will be long and will come with islamic terroristr from Taliban to Hisbolla, IS, the syran regime or Ghaddafi in Lybia.

But what crimes against humanity did Mandela commit? I argue that he was fighting against an unhumain regime of Apartheid, which was clearly against human rights. This was civil courage on the highest level and has nothing to do with terror.

But you do understand, the theory of migration as a root of problems is not fact. It is a populist statement, that tries to gain the votes of people with low education.

It is an easy ever repeating pattern. Populists offer very easy solutions to complex problems. They propose to lower prices, offer more and better payed jobs and lower wellfare cost through lower migration.

Only that almost no empirical data supports this claim. Migrants do commit significantly less criminal acts. They receive and request significantly less welfare support. They are usually not allowed to participate in voting, but participate paying tax bills on the other hand.

So anyone claiming migrants to profit more then others simply refuse to look at the world how it is.

In the US there is a big problem with equal opportunity. Children from poor families get very little chances to improve their income compared to other countries with similar GDP per capita. Wealth is much more unequal than in other countries with similar GDP per capita.

And this is very easy to proof, that neoliberal thoughts are the root of those systemic issues. Not left leaning politics. Not whatever. It is the lies of neoliberalism. Lies of Trickle down effect, stacking of wealth on those who are born into wealthy families. Destroying merit based culture. This is what neoliberalism does. This is what the current US government pushes and what increases poverty in a very fast pace.

Transparency is the best way to ensure sensitive use of such restrictions. Defnitly I see, that it has potential threats. But I want to point out, that it is a potential threat. Not a evil act of an authoritarian regime.

In a democracy it is important that people like you and me understand the topics, so we can articulate specific requests instead of populist screaming in extreme ways.

Since undifferentiated expression is what weakens political consens. We need to understand things in the complexity they have. There is no gain in facilitating theories below their complexity.

And regulation around privacy, security and freedom of speech is always a thin line between defending the vulnerable while allowing everyone to express all important things.

But I would say currently there is not much in europe, that is drastically restricted when talking about free speech, while the bad influence of plattforms algorythms towards the political poles is very strong and scientifically well proven.

So you refer to the DSA.
https://www.eff.org/issues/eu-policy-principles

The EFF reports on it as a groundbreaking Backbone for individuals freedoms.

The EFF defnitly has always been one of the more important organisations to be the voice of free citizens in the internet.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/systemic-risk-reporting-system-crisis
In this report they write about the risks of surveilance and sharing of personal data it could bring.

And it is fair to defend privacy rights, so no company is oblidged to save additional logs and offer faster data on its user to the police (especially, when it should be automated).

But as all of these points are legitimate to criticize, it is simply not true, that the DSA is one big surveillance tool implemented by authoritarian regimes. To say this lacks the understanding of all the great regulation it brings towards BigTech, which are needed so much in order to defend an open internet.

For example in the will of Google to stop users from installing their apk’s from whatever source they want, the DSA could help defend freedom.

And yet unseen law cases have been buiot against BigTech with the help of DSA.

Can you show evidence? Cases, where your hypothesis can be proofen?

Otherwise this is nothing else then a narrative.

Very suspicious, why this investigation was stopped. I hope some good newspapers keep them accountable.