U.S. Vice President Vance Signals that Politicians are Finally Understanding the Internet
In an era where governments are increasingly positioning themselves as the guardians of truth, security, and economic stability, a stark reality is becoming impossible to ignore: they can’t actually do any of it. The illusion that central authorities can safeguard speech, protect intellectual property, or regulate online threats without infringing on fundamental freedoms is unraveling before our eyes.
In a move that has sent shockwaves through the corridors of international diplomacy, U.S. Vice President JD Vance delivered a blistering address at the Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2025. Departing from the anticipated discourse on defense and external threats, Vance turned the spotlight inward, castigating European leaders for what he perceives as a systemic erosion of fundamental freedoms. This speech doesn’t just ruffle feathers; it signifies a seismic shift in American cultural and economic paradigms, challenging long-held assumptions about governance, rights, and the role of the individual in the digital age.
Vance’s address was nothing short of a rhetorical Molotov cocktail aimed at the heart of European political orthodoxy. He lambasted European governments for stifling free speech, suppressing dissent, and undermining democratic institutions. Citing instances of crackdown on online misogynistic speech and Sweden’s imprisonment of a Christian activist for burning the Qur’an, Vance painted a picture of a continent in the throes of authoritarian backsliding. He didn’t mince words, accusing European elites of using “ugly, Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation” to quash alternative viewpoints and maintain their grip on power.
“The freedom to surprise, to make mistakes, to invent, to build. As it turns out, you can’t mandate innovation or creativity just as you can’t force people what to think, what to feel, or what to believe.”
In a particularly provocative move, Vance questioned the legitimacy of Europe’s democratic institutions, referencing the annulled 2024 Romanian presidential election as a case study in democratic fragility. His message was clear: Western nations have begun prioritizing security and control over liberty, embracing a philosophy that fundamentally undermines the principles on which democracy is based.
The Waning Authority of Governments in the Digital Age
For decades, the Western world has operated under the assumption that governments play a necessary role in protecting people from harm — whether that harm takes the form of economic instability, national security threats, or even offensive speech. But Vance’s speech laid bare a growing skepticism toward this premise, particularly in how it relates to the internet and digital freedoms. He attacked European policies that punish “misinformation” with fines, censorship, and legal consequences, warning that such measures are closer to authoritarianism than democracy.
This isn’t just a European issue. In the U.S., we’ve seen the same trend play out through increasing government pressure on social media platforms to police speech. In 2023, Twitter (now X) released internal files revealing that the FBI, DHS, and even the CDC pressured the platform to suppress certain viewpoints, ranging from vaccine skepticism to discussions about the origins of COVID-19 (The Intercept). This kind of interference exposes the fundamental problem: governments are not neutral arbiters of truth. They are self-interested actors who define “misinformation” based on political convenience.
The illusion that a government can protect us from bad ideas is crumbling. The reality is that no government, no matter how well-intentioned, can successfully control digital discourse without trampling on free expression. The alternative? A return to individual responsibility, media literacy, and open debate—things that can only be strengthened through education, not regulation.
This erosion of liberty isn’t just an academic concern. According to the Cato Institute’s Human Freedom Index, Western democracies have experienced a steady decline in personal and economic freedoms over the past decade. Nations once regarded as bastions of free speech now impose severe restrictions on digital content, expression, and even religious beliefs. If left unchecked, this trajectory could push Western societies toward a culture of passive compliance rather than active citizenship.
The Free Speech Paradox: Why Censorship Creates More Harm
Censorship, in theory, is sold as a tool to protect citizens from harm. In practice, it does the opposite. As Vance pointed out in Munich, European governments’ attempts to curb “hate speech” or “misinformation” have led to the suppression of dissenting opinions, the imprisonment of activists, and the erosion of democratic processes.
But this issue isn’t limited to authoritarian or quasi-authoritarian states. Even in the United States, self-censorship is growing, driven by both government overreach and the increasing willingness of private corporations to comply with government-backed narratives. A recent study from the Knight Foundation found that 65% of Americans believe free speech is under threat, and 58% admit to self-censoring their political opinions for fear of backlash.
This chilling effect is a major problem because it stifles innovation and progress. Historically, every major social advancement — from the abolition of slavery to women’s suffrage — began as a “radical” idea that mainstream institutions sought to suppress. If we allow governments (or corporate entities acting as their proxies) to determine what can and cannot be said, we cut off the possibility of future progress before it even starts.
Privacy and the Myth of Security
One of the more striking but familiar aspects of Vance’s speech was his assertion that governments cannot meaningfully protect citizens’ privacy or security in the digital world. The sheer scope of modern technology renders traditional security measures obsolete. No government has the capability to stop cyberattacks, prevent data leaks, or ensure digital privacy without engaging in mass surveillance — which is its own form of authoritarianism.
A recent report by MIT’s Technology Review found that cybersecurity threats are increasing at a rate far beyond what governments can handle. The study notes that the sheer number of digital devices, combined with AI-driven hacking techniques, makes centralized security policies ineffective.
What does this mean? The only viable path forward is one where individuals and businesses take responsibility for their own security — through end-to-end encryption, decentralized networks, and a fundamental shift away from reliance on government oversight. Innovations like blockchain, decentralized social media, and privacy-focused AI tools aren’t just conveniences; they are necessities in an era where governments are incapable of securing the digital landscape.
Intellectual Property and the AI Revolution
Vance’s speech also hinted at another inconvenient truth: governments cannot protect intellectual property in an age where AI and globalized digital access make information impossible to contain. Copyrights, patents, and proprietary content are constantly being replicated, altered, and shared at a speed regulators cannot fathom.
For years, industries have relied on intellectual property laws to protect their creations. But as AI-generated art, music, and writing flood the internet, traditional copyright enforcement is proving unenforceable. A 2023 report from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) admitted that current copyright frameworks are “increasingly difficult to apply” to AI-generated works.
Instead of clinging to outdated protectionist policies, innovators must shift toward open-source models, alternative monetization strategies (such as blockchain-based ownership verification), and business models that embrace, rather than fear, the sharing economy.
Education and Innovation: The Only Real Solution
So, if governments can’t protect free speech, can’t secure privacy, and can’t even safeguard intellectual property, what’s the alternative? Frankly, it’s why you’re here, why you read, comment, and share with me, and what we’re pushing, together, for ecosystems to understand: education and innovation.
Vance’s speech alluded to this, but the idea isn’t new. The only way to navigate the complexities of the digital world is to equip people with the tools they need to think critically, protect themselves, and adapt to change. Instead of outsourcing our safety to governments or corporations, we should be focusing on:
- Media literacy education that teaches people how to critically evaluate information rather than blindly trust authority.
- Decentralized networks that make censorship impossible and put control back in the hands of individuals.
- Encryption and security innovations that enable people to protect their own data.
This is why the future belongs to those who embrace technological empowerment rather than wait for permission from legacy institutions.
In the age of information, the battleground for rights and freedoms has undeniably shifted to the digital realm. Vance’s critique extends to the pervasive influence of social media platforms and the paradoxical role of governments in both policing and perpetuating digital discourse. He underscores the futility — and danger — of governmental attempts to sanitize the internet, arguing that such efforts often morph into tools of suppression rather than protection. The recent debacles surrounding content moderation, shadow banning, and the nebulous definitions of “hate speech” serve as a testament to the slippery slope of digital censorship.
A report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) details how increased government intervention in social media often leads to overreach, with content removals disproportionately affecting dissenting voices. The solution? Decentralized digital platforms and blockchain-based authentication methods that eliminate the need for centralized gatekeepers while preserving freedom of speech.
Consider the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which was designed to combat misinformation but has, in practice, enabled European governments to exert unprecedented control over online discourse. By requiring platforms to preemptively remove flagged content, the DSA has placed social media companies in the untenable position of choosing between compliance and defending free expression. Which, as we saw with Facebook in Australia, or TikTok in the United States, causes platforms to just bow out, leaving us in a black market of media in which the likes of WikiLeaks and torrenting force society into connecting on our terms, which is to say, innovation that breaks control.
Education and Innovation: The Twin Pillars of Progress
Vance posits that the answer lies in empowering individuals through education and fostering a culture of innovation. By equipping citizens with critical thinking skills and technological literacy, societies can cultivate resilience against misinformation and manipulation. Simultaneously, an emphasis on innovation can spur the development of decentralized platforms, robust encryption, and other tools that enhance personal autonomy and security without the heavy hand of state intervention.
Forbes reported in 2024, that nations that have invested in digital literacy programs and innovation-driven economies experience far greater economic resilience and societal cohesion than those that rely on restrictive regulatory frameworks.
Education and technological advancements, not government intervention, remain the best defense against bad actors in the information age.
In essence, Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference serves as both an indictment of contemporary governance and a manifesto for a reinvigorated embrace of individual rights. It challenges the conventional wisdom that governments can—or should—be the arbiters of truth and protectors against all harms. Instead, it calls for a recommitment to the principles of independence, liberty, and human rights, grounded in the belief that an educated and innovative populace is the true bulwark against the challenges of the modern world.
As we stand at this crossroads, the question isn’t whether we can trust our governments to protect us, but whether we can trust ourselves to rise to the occasion. Are we prepared to shoulder the responsibilities that come with true freedom, to push for innovation and meaningfully support entrepreneurs, or will we continue to outsource our autonomy in exchange for the illusion of security?
The more control, the less innovation. Might as well be universal law
Can someone explain to me please the definition of Free Speech and the juxtaposition of women having freedom over their bodies? And why fre speech makes it ok to invalidate the constitution of the USA?
Amen!!! Omega!!!
Christina. I’ll tackle the first part as I’m very active in pushing for understanding free speech.
The right to express opinions without government restriction.
That’s it. And it’s an important question because there is a lot of misunderstanding about it a few contexts:
1. Social media platforms can do whatever it wants, and still support free speech.
2. Free speech includes hate speech. You are not free from things you don’t like nor is the speaker free from the consequences of being a terrible person.
3. We ALREADY have laws addressing speech that is criminal: slander, libel, and fraud.
4. Misinformation, fake news, disinformation, etc. are all forms of free speech.
Most contentious lately seems to be misunderstanding the first one. That, someone like Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk could be 100% for free speech (completely restrict a government from any infringement upon anything posted to their platforms) AND simultaneously ban whatever they want from Facebook and X.
Both are possible, Both are legal. Both are right, moral, and ethical.
More accurately, Facebook has nothing to do with free speech at all… that is, unless, it is fighting or allowing the government infringing on anything anyone puts there.
Onward.
There’s no doubt that innovation is a driving force for freedom, but dismissing all forms of government regulation as ‘control’ might be oversimplifying things. The reality is more nuanced.
History shows that while governments can overreach, they also play a role in setting the ground rules that allow innovation to thrive—think of antitrust laws that prevent monopolies or regulations that protect user privacy from corporate abuse. The challenge isn’t government or innovation; it’s finding the right balance between fostering technological growth and ensuring ethical, equitable access.
Decentralized networks and encryption are exciting solutions, but they don’t automatically solve issues like fraud, misinformation, or exploitation. How do we ensure technological empowerment without creating a digital Wild West where only the most powerful players win?
Freedom isn’t just about rejecting oversight—it’s about building systems that work for everyone. What does that look like in practice?
“We” is applied quite interestingly in this post and responses. “We” should invest, “We” have laws on the books, and so on. Government of the people, for the people, and by the people is necessary because “we” are easily manipulated against our own best interests, as well as predictably vulnerable to bad actors and prone to emulating bad acts. I think any conversation about what “we” should do for “ourselves” must begin with a more realistic conversation about who we are or who you think we are. Needless to say, “we” do not have equal protection under the law, although these laws are in the Bill of Rights. Likewise, “We” do not all invest the same percentages of our tax dollars for public good. Perhaps some don’t need government and perhaps some do, but that “We” so often described above needs clarification for my part.
Justin Boger Great points! The reality is indeed nuanced, and the conversation shouldn’t be framed as an absolute “government vs. innovation” battle. The key issue is rather what kind of role it should play?
Historically, governments have been most effective when setting (and with) clear, limited guardrails that prevent coercion or monopolistic control — antitrust laws you mentioned — while allowing competition flourish. The problem today is that government intervention has increasingly shifted from protecting markets and freedoms to micromanaging speech, privacy, and digital interactions in ways that often entrench existing power structures rather than disrupt them.
Decentralization and encryption aren’t a magic fix, but they shift power away from control being possible (whether corporate or governmental) and put it in the hands of individuals. Fraud, misinformation, and exploitation will always be challenges — we already deal with them in highly regulated environments, often with little success.
So rather than asking “How do we regulate innovation?” I’d argue we should ask “How do we build systems where trust, competition, and accountability emerge naturally — while preventing top-down control unless absolutely necessary?”
Sorry to sound like I’m pulling a reductio ad absurdum here, but does that mean you’re okay with stochastic terrorism? So it would be okay for me to declare an open season on Nazis? I’m not actually committing the violence myself. I’m just using my free speech the same way Trump used his to encourage his followers to “fight like hell” on January 6th.
Also, I’m assuming you want a complete and total deregulation of all technology based on what I’m reading here. Every person for themselves. No protections against intellectual property theft. So essentially capitalistic anarchy. Who suffers in that system? Workers. Who benefits? The wealthy.
I will say that I’m with you on the need to educate, educate, educate. The entire American system of government is utterly dependent on an informed, educated, and active electorate. So, you and I are in complete agreement that “Education and technological advancements, not government intervention, remain the best defense against bad actors in the information age.”
The problem is that the man whose speech you’re touting would rather indoctrinate, indoctrinate, indoctrinate, and there’s a big difference. Republicans also don’t generally vote for increasing education budgets. So there’s that.
Keith Goode Great points—you’re raising real concerns. Let’s break it down:
1?? Free Speech vs. Incitement – The line between speech and incitement matters. Legal standards (like the Brandenburg test) already prohibit direct calls to violence. The issue is: do we trust governments to define “dangerous speech” fairly? Historically, speech laws are used to silence dissent, not just protect people.
2?? Regulation vs. Deregulation – No one is calling for anarchy. Regulation should protect competition, not suppress innovation or speech. The FTC blocking monopolies? Good. EU-style content moderation that controls discourse? Dangerous.
3?? Who Benefits? – Regulations often protect the powerful. The DMCA, for example, was meant to protect creators, but mostly benefits corporations that weaponize copyright claims against small innovators.
4?? Education vs. Indoctrination – Totally agree: education is key. But both parties push control, not critical thinking. The real challenge is building a system where education empowers people, not political agendas.
So, how do we balance protection with freedom? What’s the right role for regulation?
Hot take – the Illuminati don’t want more innovation, they want more control.
Aaron, I’ll go along with your hot take, because the point is that IF that’s true, then what? Let them have it?
I believe free speech is a wonderful red herring to deflect from the age old issue which is economic power corrupts. Those with economic power have the ability to determine what speech is heard and what is not. Of course humans will seek to shut down the voices of those they disagree with as that is the best way to amass more power. That is as fundamental in our DNA as opposable thumbs. The great promise of DEFI future is that for perhaps the first time in human history there is a mechanism the raises the bar to concentrating economic power by orders of magnitude. Speech is a Poisson distribution like all things human. Left to its own devices it will approximate a normal curve with minimal skew. Those views in the tails are free to make as much noise as they can. But without a rich benefactor to put its thumb on the scale by amplifying and suppressing strategically hard to skew things too ffar.i don’t know what the future holds but any technology that helps put some practical guard rails against human nature while simultaneously empowering human ingenuity…I believe is an evolutionary jump forward.
Simon Leach economic power is just as much a force in controlling speech as government regulation. The reality is that whether it’s governments, corporations, or wealthy individuals, those with power shape discourse. Crony capitalism is only a thing because of the crony; we have people elected to office, authorities, to protect free markets, prosecute crime, and prohibit violations of rights, and they aren’t doing it… resulting in capitalism having cronies.
That’s why decentralization matters—not just in finance, but in media, AI, and digital platforms.
DeFi is a great example of how technology can create systems where no single entity can tilt the scales. The same principles apply to decentralized social media, blockchain-based content verification, and encrypted communication. When economic and information control are spread across networks rather than concentrated in institutions, speech and innovation can thrive naturally.
The challenge is ensuring these technologies remain accessible and resistant to co-option. What do you think—how do we stop decentralized solutions from being captured by the same forces they were meant to disrupt? Why not just… create another one?
Greg J. Micek & William Collins
AI fixes this Future of Freedom: Innovation, Not Control
Paul O’Brien The golden rule may apply-those with the gold make the rules.
We may have already passed the tipping point in the US with the Citizens United decision.