We need a censorship-resistant truth protocol – I have the idea, not the skills

5 points by PowerQuestion 17 hours ago

Here’s something that’s been on my mind for a while. I’m not a developer, I don’t work in crypto, I don’t have technical skills to build this. But I’ve been watching the trend of censorship and narrative control around the world — and I can’t unsee it anymore.

It’s no longer a conspiracy theory to say that governments — authoritarian or “democratic” — are now openly working to limit the distribution of certain kinds of information. They don’t even try to hide it. They regulate platforms, force takedowns, threaten fines, and use "disinformation" as a legal crowbar. What they really fear isn’t chaos, or even lies. What they fear is unfiltered truth.

Truth that hasn’t been interpreted, branded, fact-checked by “partners,” or algorithmically buried. Truth that’s raw, uncomfortable, unpredictable, and — most of all — uncontainable.

And that’s exactly what I think we need to protect. I believe we need a protocol — not a company, not a platform, not a brand — that makes truth functionally impossible to censor. Not because it’s illegal to censor it, but because it’s technically and socially unviable to do so.

We’ve seen what happens when power feels threatened: platforms are co-opted, founders are pressured, policies change. Even Twitter, which promised to be the “free speech” platform, is already bending. Facebook is state-aligned. YouTube can kill a video for having the wrong medical take. Substack and Rumble may hold out for now, but they’re still choke points. Still targetable. Still fragile.

What we need is something like a living, breathing immune system for truth. A protocol that distributes sensitive or critical information the same way a torrent network distributes files — redundantly, irreversibly, and autonomously. Something that allows people to report corruption, abuse of power, hypocrisy, waste — and have that evidence uploaded, validated, analyzed, and published in a way that no single entity can erase.

Ideally, this would include mechanisms for anonymous whistleblowing. AI-based pattern detection to connect dots across cases. Public scoring for politicians, judges, institutions, agencies. Tracking of promises made vs. delivered. Reputation based on action, not marketing. Public money traceability. Radical transparency by default. And everything backed by decentralized storage and consensus.

I know, some of this may already exist in parts. But it’s not unified. It’s not bulletproof. It’s not trusted. And most importantly, it’s not designed from the ground up with one goal in mind: to make truth unstoppable.

This idea — I call it VERITAS — isn’t about ideology. It’s not left or right. It doesn’t care about parties. It only cares about facts, evidence, and accountability. And it should be fundamentally incompatible with being owned, monetized, co-opted, or shut down.

I know this sounds ambitious. But I believe it’s necessary. The State, as it exists today, doesn’t survive through legitimacy — it survives through narrative control. And if we take that away — not with violence, not with chaos, but with cold, hard, data-driven transparency — we can fundamentally alter how power operates.

So this is my invitation. I’m not asking for donations. I’m not launching anything. I just want to see if there are people out there who feel the same urgency. Who understand the technical side of this, and who might want to sketch out what a system like this would look like.

Fork this idea. Steal it. Build on it. Improve it. Make it better than I imagined. Or reach out — I’d be glad to work together. I just want it to exist. Because we’re running out of time, and the walls are closing in. And once truth becomes fully permissioned — we’ve lost everything.

Let’s make it uncensorable now, before it’s too late.

Flundstrom2 an hour ago

What you are writing about are several different things; first of all, you're writing about open information - because truth is always a simplification of information. Information on the other hand, is man-made statements which some people believe are true, some believe is wrong, and some believe are deliberate lies, with or without malicious intent.

And any piece of information can be all at once, depending on from which side you look at them.

But, that detail aside; Yes. We need information to be free. We need to emphasize information that - as a whole - gives growth and prosperity to humankind as a whole. We need to suppress information that - as a whole - delay or reverse human development.

But I don't mean "hide" or "stop" such information.

Let's say dictator X have stolen 10% of her country's wealth for personal gain. But during her reign she managed to lift the standard of living, increase health of the common and the poorest tenfold. Both pieces of information are "true", but depending on the conclusion drawn from each of them in isolation, that information can be used for both good or bad.

That's the philosophical part.

Then comes the ethical part; Who gets to decide what information is good for mankind to emphasize, and what is good for mankind to suppress?

Not every single individual on earth have the empathical or intellectual ability to deal with all kind of information with an open mind in a way that is - for mankind as a whole - positive.

And once again; what is good vs bad for humanity also depends on how long time you're going to consider; What is good for humanity for the next 100 years might be bad if we continue on the same path for 1000 years. But that might be a hypothetical judgment because we don't know what changes it might bring in 1500 years. Let alone 15000 years.

Then there's the technological part. That's the easy one.

The technology to verify the origin of information, and to verify how it has been altered, to ensure it is resilient against accidental and intentional removal exist and is well-established. Block chains, torrents, onion etc are just tools. The most difficult part is to provide the means to give access; If a state decides to simply deny access to internet, you will be back to the 80's way of sharing information, and no matter how perfect the protocol is, it doesn't matter if there's no infrastructure on which it can run.