Protocol

Reimagining the First Amendment in the Digital Age

I’ve written before about the distinction between a platform, like Gmail or X, and a protocol, like SMTP or nostr. The former is typically owned and centrally controlled, the latter permissionless and open to everyone. For example, Google can ban you from using its email *client*, but no one can prevent you from using email itself because no one owns the email protocol.

Language is also a protocol, in fact every language including English. Anyone, even your worst enemy who knows it can make himself understood by those who understand it. Dictionaries and grammar guides exist, but over time even they bend to common usage and are forced to include new words and rules over time because no one owns or unilaterally controls the language.

Nonetheless that doesn’t prevent people from trying. If large companies ban you from using their communications platforms like Facebook, X and Gmail, it can severely constrict your reach. Banks can’t prevent you from using physical dollars, but they can cancel your credit cards and close your accounts, if for example you’ve decided to support Canadian truckers protesting their government, making it difficult for you to transact in a society largely run on their digital rails.

Over the last few years we even saw brazen attempts to turn language into a protocol via preferred pronouns, political correctness and a government-funded “disinformation” industry. The idea was that you had to “log in” with your correct view and accurate information credential before you could participate in a discussion about a wide array of sensitive topics. If you questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccines, the fairness of the 2020 election or the origins of the Covid virus you often found yourself denied reach on various platforms and labeled “anti-vax,” “anti-science,” an “election denier” or a “conspiracy theorist.”

These labels served to circumvent substantive discussion by denying basic standing such that there was no path to a hearing on the merits. If you did not signal your bona fides via adherence to certain preferred edicts, your perspective was often summarily dismissed, not only by individuals, but also institutions at the behest of which the modern public square is administered.

In short, centralized platforms, responding to government pressure, attempted to turn self-expression and in some cases even language itself into platform. As it turns out, that attempt was a violation of the law, at least in the United States, where we have a First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That the First Amendment was violated over the last five years (and is still being violated now, though more with respect to what you can say about Israel and the conflict raging therein) is not surprising. The Constitution is merely a piece of paper and as such wholly dependent on succeeding generations’ willingness to stand up for it. Governments are always, by their nature, top down and fascistic insofar as they use force to achieve their desired ends, and it would be naive to think a piece of paper should stop them from doing so given a sufficiently compliant populace.

Put differently, the consecrated ideas in the piece of paper must be perpetuated to retain their binding effect. And rational arguments as to their supremacy over the expedience of the day (“people are dying, it’s a once in a century pandemic!”) often fall on propagandized ears. A list of sacrosanct principles is no failsafe for mass formation psychosis, and sophisticated and powerful factions have learned to foment manias as needed to overwhelm the average person’s dedication to them.

But just as gunpowder to some extent democratized the use of force 600 years ago, the spread of new technologies has the potential to enforce the First Amendment in perpetuity in a way the Framers with their pen and paper could not. In fact, we can re-write the First Amendment for the modern digital age in simplified form:

Religion and speech are ever protocols, never platforms.

In essence, no centralized entity can control, capture or censor them. But instead of simply stating this as a matter of principle, we can now, via Bitcoin and nostr, instantiate it into a decentralized ecosystem with the use of distributed nodes and unbreakable encryption. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men would more have as much chance of re-assembling Humpty Dumpty, contra the laws of entropy, as cracking your private keys. Inducing manias in the general public and using it as a lever on centralized gatekeepers works only at the platform level, but necessarily fails versus a distributed protocol.

The solution then in the face of an indifferent and obedient population to restoring the principles on which freedom and the prospect of human prosperity depend is to develop and use unstoppable, uncensorable technology, i.e., digital protocols, to circumvent the walled-garden platforms run by centralized tech behemoths. Yes, advocating for the principles in the founding documents is good and useful, but building and using tools that instantiate them is also necessary.

If enough people transact peer to peer in bitcoin rather than over the closed-circuit rails of the global banking system, and enough people share information over nostr, rather than via the centralized tech platforms, laws and actions that violate free speech would be as effective as ones outlawing gravity or laws of thermodynamics.

The next revolution won’t be with the guillotine or the pitchfork, but bottom-up person to person, permissionless interaction and transaction. You can still be excommunicated from the platforms by their commissars and state apparatchiks, but their edicts no longer run merely afoul of a consecrated piece of paper — they come up against an infrastructure over which they no longer have enforceable jurisdiction.