What Google thinks is relevant to a search for "freedom strategy"(depicted in the following image) is mostly individuals and small companies selling services that have nothing to do with "freedom" in the political sense. Of course, Google doesn't really "think," but it sometimes "selects intelligently," which is a type of thought process. So, what google returns, millions of Americans will think. This is interesting to me, because the product that humanity needs most desperately is a viable strategy toward political freedom. ...Maybe Google will figure that out when their house of cards built on appeasing tyranny finally comes tumbling down.
...then again, maybe not.
Will tyranny come tumbling down, if people don't tear it down?
It's already happening, but even most libertarians don't realize it. It'll begin with the first website to get social media correct. And, if people don't tear this government down, (prior to its collapsing of its own weight) won't the crumbling tyranny result in immense hardship due to a lack of a "ready-to-go replacement"? Sure it will! Germany got lucky in the post-WW2 years: the USA was providing a "ready-to-go" freer-than-most-places-then-existing model that was an improvement to their own system.
A simple and fast way to prevent mass destruction on a grand scale would be to simply reinstantiate proper jury trials, via the individual choice of those called for jury duty. This option is called "Jury Independence" and is described in Clay Conrad's book, "Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine." This is a choice that, when people are informed about it, actually leads to constructive actions being taken to reinstantiate a free market. (And, free markets can solve any problem, due to the focusing of scarce resources on innovation and problem solving, as opposed to "pre-emptively hiding and masking talents and abilities from authoritarian sociopaths.") Contrast the "jury independence strategy" with "generally informing people about libertarianism." The unfocused, "general information outreach," to be successful, requires the listener to understand the implications of a coherent belief system, as well as understand Economics, as well as formulate a winning electoral strategy with which to roll back the power of the state, ...which will not happen.
FACT: Simply learning about libertarianism doesn't produce the outcome of libertarianism.
Simply learning about jury independence actually does produce the outcome of libertarianism. (This is largely true because it leverages individual pro-freedom actions of mostly anti-freedom people. For example: a small-D Democrat who learns about jury independence is likely to vote "not guilty" in a drug case, and nullify the drug laws, even while supporting government schools and the income tax. A small-R republican is likely to nullify the gun and tax laws, even while hypocritically supporting the drug war, foreign wars, and a central bank.) That's why I prefer jury independence activism to all other strategies toward individual freedom: individual pro-freedom stances are empowered with this strategy.
So Why Don't Most Libertarians Pursue This Strategy?
If libertarians were less vain and stupid(unwittingly self-destructive; actually desirous of a virtuous outcome), they could and would focus their resources on jury independence training and activism. (When I say "focus", I don't mean "to the exclusion of all else" ...I mention this only because this is a hard concept for a lot of "all-or-nothing" type thinkers in the liberty movement.)
So, what could unite all the pro-freedom people in a "jury-rights-based" effort to restore individual liberty? Perhaps a computerized social network that allows intelligent selection, filtering, and friend-finding? Like Facebook, Google+, Twitter, or ...Steemit? ....Exactly! (Such a network would have to be capable of "masking" a subset of comments, since prosecutors and judges have been searching through "unfree" social media posts and using them to disqualify jurors during the tyrannical and unconstitutional voir dire process. This process is covered in detail by Clay Conrad here:
http://fija.org/docs/BR_YYYY_surviving_voir_dire.pdf
Sadly, every single social media site thinks that programming nerds can solve every problem encountered in building a social media website. Too bad for them, it turns out that political people programmers(preferably libertarian ones) are necessary as well. I was a libertarian people programmer for several years. ...But it turns out that such people are hated by ...other libertarians. (Small-L "libertarians" are mostly people who have a biological predisposition toward being libertarians. In a society that has a surviving culture of liberty, such libertarians would be supportive of that society and actively defend it. ...But they can't imagine that such a society could exist alongside a state, because they've been convinced by pontificating idiots that all states inherently grow in size to become totalitarian states. They fail to understand that, even if true, state power can only be reduced incrementally. They fail to understand this, because they have no idea how the modern state came to be, and they forget that for about twenty decades, state power was steadily and incrementally-reduced. They fail to understand the former concept because they, like the people they criticize, are graduates of government schools. This has resulted in the current USA, a country where libertarians are mostly too-stupid to pursue a form of liberty that can be sold to the general public. In other words, today's libertarians have chosen to "flee" instead of "engage" the enemy. This sorry state of affairs is easily contrasted with Lysander Spooner's decision to sell freedom to the general public by targeting the then-worst enemies of individual freedom(slave owners) with a message that allowed the buyer of individual freedom(Northerners) to feel good about their past decisions(self-identification with the Bill of Rights), and therefore, themselves.)
Contrarianism
Self-describing libertarians are not actually libertarians, but contrarians. This leads them to describe themselves in a steady progression of terms that place them at odds with any group (so they start off calling themselves "constitutionalists" but then rebel against that group of mostly-inadequate and disorganized people by calling themselves "austrian economists", and then rebel against that group of people by calling themselves "pure rothbardian anarchists", and then rebel against that group of people by calling themselves "agorists"...it never ends). ...But membership in groups defines political power, and without power, you are just a powerless person who is easily-dismissed by mainstream conformists as ineffectual.
You see, most Americans(including self-proclaimed "libertarians") are stupid, self-contradicting quasi-libertarians. (The prior is a literal description, insulting or not. Kurzweil's technical definition of "stupid" is "unwittingly self-destructive.") Americans want to think of themselves as independent humans, but they're really obedient dogs. If you can show them that the highest-philosophical level of their philosophy is dog-like, servile, and obedient, 20% of them are ashamed, get more independent, and correct the mistakes of their philosophy, while 80%, when given the same self-knowledge, lash out at the messenger, and become more servile and dog-like. (Even to the extent of "killing the messenger" or "reporting the underground railroad conductor to the police." In short, 80% of people are identical to the Nazis we fought in WW2. Think about that. Most of the people who championed our grandfathers blowing the brains out of German soldiers are identical in their philosophies to those German soldiers. ...As Stanley Milgram's "Obedience to Authority" experiment/book/movie proved, beyond any reasonable doubt.)
Dishonest Political Labels
"Conservatism" and the corrupted modern form of "liberalism"(socialist pseudo-liberalism, really) would not exist without human stupidity. Said another way, if people were simply 50 IQ points smarter, they'd restore classical liberalism, or "libertarianism." ...But they can't, because they allowed government schools to instantiate a recursively self-degrading failure mode in our society and culture. This failure mode encouraged people to view themselves as adults with full decision-making capacity, without ever having gotten a basic Civics education. (Simply by severing the knowledge-thread of the History of slowly-incrementally-increasing liberty, common knowledge of the political form of liberty has been eliminated.) At one point, people obtained Civics knowledge from teachers and tutors as young-adults. Once government-schooling took over and came under the control of a central bank, schools were standardized to slowly eliminate these teachings.
The appropriate blame can be laid squarely at the feet of our great grandparents, many of whom were alive and politically-active in the 1880s, because they had the information necessary to prevent the government takeover of schooling. John Taylor Gatto and "The School Sucks Podcast" have figured this out, and done a better job of reporting on it than I can do here.
Here's an Excellent Episode of the "School Sucks" Podcast:
Suffice to say, you are crippling your child if you send him or her to a government school.
It takes a culture of philosophical cripples to allow the philosophically-illiterate totalitarians of Google to get away with returning abjectly stupid results when people search for philosophical answers (or even news updates that contain a philosophical component). Of course, Google should be free to return shitty results, but we should be absolutely free to make sure they don't get a penny of our money if that's how they want to play the game. Unfortunately, the central-bank-run government can make sure they get our money anyway, in exchange for helping the government "manage" us like farm chattel. ...So, cronies of the existing government shouldn't get a free pass. They've been untrustworthy stewards of our information, and violators of our privacy. Fuck them.
So, what's my suggestion? What's the solution?
A smart social network should allow "lots of keywords" so that the author of the post could be reasonably sure they'd hit precise keyword searches made by philosophical people. (This is a key feature of brain-like general intelligences that use sparse distributed representations to model reality in highly-compressed form. The number of connections forms a predictive state, and searches based on concatenated terms fires or activates that predictive state, selecting a pattern.) Alternately or additionally, they could employ a hierarchical graph with philosophy designations that could be voted on by the readers. (The more "high-level" or "broadly-system-applicable" a post is, the higher it's ranked. The more "low-level" a post is, the more it's concerned with "specifics" and "details," the lower it's ranked. ...Granted, this would be difficult for the philosophically-illiterate graduates of government schools who have never been taught to think in terms of legitimate natural hierarchies, but it might be possible.)
At very least, there need to be social networks that not only tolerate absolute freedom of speech, but encourage it, and allow a range of filters to their users to filter out all the bullshit that accompanies totally free speech. One way of doing this would be to encourage non-anonymous public accounts, and "anonymous public accounts," keeping anonymous accounts separate and allowing fast switching between the non-anonymous account and multiple "anonymous" and/or private accounts.
There's no freedom from oppressive "copyright defense" or "patent infringement" lawsuits in the USA. That's likely how Zurker.org met its sorry fate(though it appears to be back now, so I'm not sure if they survived or "sold out" under the pressure of legal action). Goodreads, of course, is too narrowly-focused, and not really a free speech forum. Minds.com has almost identical legalese bullshit boilerplate to facebook when it started up. ...And all of these sites are located in countries with "freedom of speech in name only"(FOSINO) which perfectly accompanies their "republicans in name only"(RINOs), "democrats in name only"(DINOs), and "libertarians in name only"(LINOs). ...Why not "round out" the "in name only" naming convention to more accurately reflect how dire the situation is?
The "no true free speech" problem is a difficult problem made more difficult because expertise in programming seems to correspond to ineptitude in dealing with mass psychology and philosophy.
Censorship Without The Appearance of Censorship
...People Don't Imagine, Or Defend, Free Speech That Would Have Existed Without Targeted, Selective Censorship Policies...
Many people seem to think that it's acceptable to be culturally and personally and privately against free speech, as long as the government isn't involved in mandating hard limits. The problem with this short-sighted view is that most people don't realize that this allows the rapid destruction of what little freedom remains, in a technological era where tech-enabled tyranny can rapidly shuttle millions of Jews to gas chambers, or deport millions of immigrants, or jail millions of harmless drug users or dissidents with mock jury trials. Moreover, if they can jail and silence their most effective critics by shutting down their social media profiles, they can do so before a competitor can arise that actually believes in free speech. (Meaning that, as the competitor arises, it's too late to sound the alarm.)
The prior has been the means by which we've lost most of our right to free speech and democratic access to the ballots in the first place. The book "The Shadow University" by Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silverglate details how campuses have restricted free speech, as "testing grounds for tyranny" where students and faculty are viewed as "subservient to the parents' and University administrators' "authority", in the form of postmodernist marxist "Offices of Student Affairs." It's these offices that call the campus security comprised of retired or part-time cops to attack and arrest only the petitioners who have legally-binding petitions, on campus. They claim that, although the campus is open to the public, it's the campus's duty to shelter students from members of the general public. The view of Marxist OSAs is that the general public has no right to speak in unamplified interpersonal speech while on campus. Sort of a "you check your free speech at the door" when you set foot on campus. They also claim to be "private institutions" ...even though 90% of the students in attendance are subsidized with tax-financed government grants and high-risk loans. How many taxpayers would voluntarily continue to finance Universities if they knew that the Universities essentially treated the campus grounds as if they had signs posted saying "Warning, The Bill of Rights does not Apply beyond this Point. If you are not a student, and you attempt to effectively circulate a legally-binding initiative or ballot access petition beyond this point, you will be arrested and charged with trespass." The prior policy is all-the-more-damning because there is a superficial appearance of free speech. All the student desks set up to "Save the Whales" which carry no legally binding weight are tolerated. Frisbee games where students are throwing flying disks through the air are interrupting foot traffic on the sidewalks. ...But if you try to circulate a petition for Libertarian Party ballot access, you'll be arrested for "blocking foot traffic" ...even if you did no such thing. ...This way, it appears they are not arresting you for speaking, so the issue of "free speech" never even comes up, unless you have a skilled lawyer. They then pass you off to the local cops' holding cell, where you are held under bright lights, and threaten you with prosecution for "trespass" if you set foot on campus again. The campus, all the while, claims that it is "open to the public" ...and most of the servile idiot civilians in the community assume that there is freedom of speech n campus, because they regularly see politically-ineffectual speech on campus. In this way, persecuting only effective speech has been a goldmine for advancing totalitarian tyranny in the USA, all while maintaining the illusion of freedom.)
Will the internet come under the same post-modernist totalitarian control that has assumed control of the campus grounds of American Universities? Has this already happened?
How Can We Use Computation To Find Strategies That Could Set Us Free?
Hopefully, the prior post has made you think a little bit about whether you're really free to speak, communicate, and learn about effective political strategies toward freedom. The U. S. government doesn't care if you want to expand the size of government: all politicians other than a few rare classical liberals are already working toward that goal in a highly efficient manner. Similarly, they don't mind if you're a stupid libertarian running in a race for an unwinnable gigantic office, where, even if you won(which you won't), you'd be hopelessly outnumbered by totalitarian parasites.
In order for most people to figure out the prior realities, Google would have to efficiently serve them useful information. Google knows what information is useful. They purposefully do not serve it to you. ...Because they like being dominant in the existing status quo "uninformed market."
Hopefully the prior has made you think a little bit about all the things you don't see everyday, that, if you saw them, would have motivated you to act in defense of your own freedom. The following essay can make you a more effective defender of your own freedom, now, when it matters most.