Popper's book is more philosophical than historical, and I'm as annoyed with people who only know one soundbite from it as the next guy, but over time I've come

Popper's book is more philosophical than historical, and I'm as annoyed with people who only know one soundbite from it as the next guy, but over time I've come to believe that the paradox encodes an important truth: there's no reason for me to support freedom of speech for those who don't support mine. Maybe the way of the future is something like Substack, groups of people who say "we'll protect each other's right to speak freely, but if you want to enjoy our protection too, you must contribute materially". Without such coordination, there's no point playing the good soldier in favor of free speech for everyone. Freedom for those who care enough to coordinate is the only way freedom ever worked.