had an interesting chat with my legal friends about "credible neutrality"

here's the twist: "being maximal censorship-resistant and credibly neutral" might be the least neutral stance

why?

by prioritizing censorship resistance, you're taking a strong political stance valuing individual sovereignty over shared morality

consider this: imagine irrefutable evidence of some address's owner committing horrible acts like child trafficking

do you ban their address or not?

not censoring at the base layer is an extreme position in the tradeoff between individual rights and collective ethics

some might argue it leans towards moral relativism - by not banning them, it is suggesting no absolute right or wrong exist

i'm not entirely sold on this view, but it offers an intriguing perspective on credible neutrality

thoughts?