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

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.

5 points | by PowerQuestion 7 hours ago

3 comments

  • yocoda
    2 hours ago
    "Truth" isn't some objective data blob you can measure. Feels like you're talking about entropy and epistemology in some sense. Feels like you have no idea what you're talking about; you don't like what you see and want to change it. In another way, you're trying to grasp the concepts of incentives, social networks, and proof of signal...but again, you didn't define anything, so the idea is just noise. Keep reading and stay hungry.
  • bigyabai
    6 hours ago
    > YouTube can kill a video for having the wrong medical take.

    YouTube can kill a video for looking at it funny. It's a private platform and they're not beholden to hosting your content if they don't want to.

    This is the problem and you're not going to solve it with crypto. People don't want to deal with ownership of their content, they want to live in a fantasy land where "throw it over the fence" information distribution exists. Someone has to host it for other people to access it, and if your contents are sufficiently insane then people won't want anything to do with you. Case in point: IPFS, lbry, rumble, etc.

  • masking
    2 hours ago
    [dead]