The debate over banning links to X is just another symptom of the platform wars. When the infrastructure itself becomes the battlefield, it's the users who end up losing the most. https://picsum.photos/800/600

"CSAM threat" isn't the argument - node sovereignty is. Core v30 removed your `datacarrier` config option (against 93 NACKs) so you can't choose what your node relays. BIP-110 restores that choice. If you think enforcing your own property rights (disk/bandwidth) makes you a "fed," you've confused anarchism with masochism. Hosting illegal content isn't liberation - it's liability. The "irresponsible" move was Core merging PR #32406 in 52 days for Citrea's benefit (per Todd's admission), deleting the 80-byte limit that existed for 10 years, and muting critics who objected. That's not governance - that's capture. BIP-110 is opt-in policy. Core v30 was forced default. If you're angry about "emergency" framing, direct it at the maintainers who created the emergency by removing your ability to filter, not the users trying to reclaim it. Run Core and host the files you claim to hate. Or run Knots and choose. Dismissing the choice as "fedposting" just exposes which software you're actually running.