This ad-free page was gifted by a premium user
🧵 THREAD
1/ They are coming for open source software.
Not by banning it. By requiring identity verification for anyone who contributes code.
No more anonymous developers. No more pseudonymous contributors. No more building tools without attaching your real name and government ID to every line of code you write.
If they can identify every developer, they can control what gets built. And if they can control what gets built, they can stop anything that threatens their power.
1/ They are coming for open source software.
Not by banning it. By requiring identity verification for anyone who contributes code.
No more anonymous developers. No more pseudonymous contributors. No more building tools without attaching your real name and government ID to every line of code you write.
If they can identify every developer, they can control what gets built. And if they can control what gets built, they can stop anything that threatens their power.
2/ Code is speech.
The Supreme Court has affirmed this. Writing software is protected by the First Amendment just like writing a book or publishing an article.
But if you cannot write code anonymously, you cannot speak freely.
Identity verification does not just eliminate anonymous development. It eliminates free speech for anyone building tools that challenge power.
The Supreme Court has affirmed this. Writing software is protected by the First Amendment just like writing a book or publishing an article.
But if you cannot write code anonymously, you cannot speak freely.
Identity verification does not just eliminate anonymous development. It eliminates free speech for anyone building tools that challenge power.
3/ You want to build encryption software that protects privacy.
You write the code. You test it. It works. You publish it as open source so anyone can use it.
But now the repository requires verified identity. You must link your real name to the project. Your government ID. Your location.
You know what happens next. The people who do not want strong encryption to exist will know exactly who built it. And they will come for you.
You write the code. You test it. It works. You publish it as open source so anyone can use it.
But now the repository requires verified identity. You must link your real name to the project. Your government ID. Your location.
You know what happens next. The people who do not want strong encryption to exist will know exactly who built it. And they will come for you.
4/ So you do not publish the code.
Not because it is illegal. Not because it does not work. But because you cannot build tools that threaten power without exposing yourself to retaliation.
The encryption software never gets built. The privacy tool never launches. The alternative to surveillance never exists.
And the people who wanted to stop it never had to ban it. They just made it too dangerous to create.
Not because it is illegal. Not because it does not work. But because you cannot build tools that threaten power without exposing yourself to retaliation.
The encryption software never gets built. The privacy tool never launches. The alternative to surveillance never exists.
And the people who wanted to stop it never had to ban it. They just made it too dangerous to create.
5/ A developer in another country wants to build a tool that bypasses government censorship.
In his country, speaking against the regime gets you imprisoned. But code is speech. And open source lets him build freedom tools anonymously.
Until identity verification is required.
Now he has a choice. Attach his real name to code that his government considers a threat — or stop building.
He stops building. The tool never gets finished. And the people who needed it stay trapped behind the censorship wall.
In his country, speaking against the regime gets you imprisoned. But code is speech. And open source lets him build freedom tools anonymously.
Until identity verification is required.
Now he has a choice. Attach his real name to code that his government considers a threat — or stop building.
He stops building. The tool never gets finished. And the people who needed it stay trapped behind the censorship wall.
6/ A teenage programmer wants to contribute to a project.
She is 16. Brilliant. Self-taught. She finds a bug in an open source security tool and writes a patch that fixes it.
But the repository now requires identity verification. She must submit government ID proving she is old enough to contribute.
She does not have ID. And even if she did, her parents will not let her attach her real name to a project online.
The bug does not get fixed. The tool stays vulnerable. And the next generation of developers learns that you need permission to solve problems.
She is 16. Brilliant. Self-taught. She finds a bug in an open source security tool and writes a patch that fixes it.
But the repository now requires identity verification. She must submit government ID proving she is old enough to contribute.
She does not have ID. And even if she did, her parents will not let her attach her real name to a project online.
The bug does not get fixed. The tool stays vulnerable. And the next generation of developers learns that you need permission to solve problems.
7/ Open source software is the foundation of the internet.
Linux. Bitcoin. Signal. Tor. Every tool that protects your freedom was built by people you will never meet. People who contributed code anonymously. People who solved problems without needing approval from anyone.
That is why open source is powerful. Not because the code is free. Because the code is free from control.
And that is exactly why they want to kill it.
Linux. Bitcoin. Signal. Tor. Every tool that protects your freedom was built by people you will never meet. People who contributed code anonymously. People who solved problems without needing approval from anyone.
That is why open source is powerful. Not because the code is free. Because the code is free from control.
And that is exactly why they want to kill it.
8/ Identity verification in open source does not make software safer.
It makes developers controllable.
If you know who wrote the code, you can pressure them to stop. You can threaten them with prosecution. You can freeze their accounts. You can flag their identity.
You do not need to ban the software. You just destroy the person who built it. And everyone watching learns not to build tools that challenge power.
It makes developers controllable.
If you know who wrote the code, you can pressure them to stop. You can threaten them with prosecution. You can freeze their accounts. You can flag their identity.
You do not need to ban the software. You just destroy the person who built it. And everyone watching learns not to build tools that challenge power.
9/ Here is what happens when identity verification is required for code contributions.
Innovation dies. Privacy tools disappear. Encryption gets weaker. Censorship becomes unbreakable.
Not because the technology stopped working. But because the people who would have built it cannot do so without making themselves a target.
The psychopaths pushing these requirements know exactly what they are doing. They are not making software safer. They are making resistance impossible.
Innovation dies. Privacy tools disappear. Encryption gets weaker. Censorship becomes unbreakable.
Not because the technology stopped working. But because the people who would have built it cannot do so without making themselves a target.
The psychopaths pushing these requirements know exactly what they are doing. They are not making software safer. They are making resistance impossible.
10/ And here is the part that should terrify you.
Once identity verification is normalized for open source, it expands everywhere.
You cannot publish code without ID. You cannot contribute to a project without verification. You cannot build tools without government approval.
And the people deciding who gets approved are the same people who do not want privacy tools, encryption software, or freedom technologies to exist.
Once identity verification is normalized for open source, it expands everywhere.
You cannot publish code without ID. You cannot contribute to a project without verification. You cannot build tools without government approval.
And the people deciding who gets approved are the same people who do not want privacy tools, encryption software, or freedom technologies to exist.
11/ This is not about security. This is about control.
The people demanding identity verification in open source are not trying to stop bad code. They are trying to stop code they cannot control.
They want to know who is building privacy tools so they can stop them. They want to know who is writing encryption so they can pressure them. They want to know who is creating alternatives so they can destroy them before those tools become unstoppable.
Open source software is the last place where you can build without permission. And they cannot allow that to continue.
The people demanding identity verification in open source are not trying to stop bad code. They are trying to stop code they cannot control.
They want to know who is building privacy tools so they can stop them. They want to know who is writing encryption so they can pressure them. They want to know who is creating alternatives so they can destroy them before those tools become unstoppable.
Open source software is the last place where you can build without permission. And they cannot allow that to continue.
12/ Reject every proposal that requires identity verification for code contributions.
Reject digital signatures tied to government IDs. Reject mandatory verification for developers. Reject any system that makes anonymous contribution impossible.
Open source software is how we build the tools that protect liberty. If we let them kill it, we lose the ability to create alternatives to the surveillance state.
Share this thread. Send it to every developer, every contributor, every person who has ever written a line of code. Make them see what is at stake. Make them understand that once identity verification is required, open source dies — and with it dies the ability to build freedom.
Every day I warn about the systems being built to eliminate your ability to resist. I expose the infrastructure designed to make alternatives impossible. I sound the alarm while there is still time to fight.
Follow me. Share this warning. Because if we do not defend open source now, we will lose the last tool we have to build a future they do not control.
The window is still open. But only if we fight.
Preserve Liberty by Preserving Privacy.
Reject digital signatures tied to government IDs. Reject mandatory verification for developers. Reject any system that makes anonymous contribution impossible.
Open source software is how we build the tools that protect liberty. If we let them kill it, we lose the ability to create alternatives to the surveillance state.
Share this thread. Send it to every developer, every contributor, every person who has ever written a line of code. Make them see what is at stake. Make them understand that once identity verification is required, open source dies — and with it dies the ability to build freedom.
Every day I warn about the systems being built to eliminate your ability to resist. I expose the infrastructure designed to make alternatives impossible. I sound the alarm while there is still time to fight.
Follow me. Share this warning. Because if we do not defend open source now, we will lose the last tool we have to build a future they do not control.
The window is still open. But only if we fight.
Preserve Liberty by Preserving Privacy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
