I send an anonymous post to a 2nd secure communicator who receives messages for display. The message includes what I am interested in communicating about along with the encryption key, ,e used to encrypt messages to me, the open data store that I am going to be looking in for messages.
A 3rd secure communicator who can view messages collated and presented by the 2nd secure communicator who is interested in communicating on the same subject uses the encryption key to create a message for me to read. The 3rd secure communicator crafts a message including their own encryption key and the open data store they will be using, encrypts it ans sends it to the open data store I will be using.
The messages can include things like digital signatures to verify the source.
The only things need to two way communication to take place is for both parties to be able to read messages intended for them and to be able to send messages that can be read by their intended recipient. Everything else that we commonly include today is to make sure that the communication succeeds in an environment where everything can break all the time. Network technology has come a long way since those ancient times of token ring and arpanet.
You do not need to know who you are talking to to have a secure and private communication.

When I say lots of secure communicators using this I am not referring to lots of people using systems like this. I mean that when lots of people are using this then they are all using the same infrastructure without compromising each other's security or privacy.
Any the providers of the infrastructure to do this do not need to know the private/public keys the communicators are using. The communicators encrypt their messages and dead drop them. Then if someone has the decryption key they can read the contents of what has been dropped.
No need for the providers of the infrastructure to ever know who the messages are from or who they are for.
Doing this so everyone gets paid for providing the infrastructure, improving efficiency, making sure there are ways of getting necessary information like methods of contacting others and finding useful resources provided by others is fairly complicated, but straight forward.
I wrote it up in a wiki if you are interested.

Recording and storing of metadata is never required.
Secure communicator A advertises an encryption key for someone that wants to send them a message.
A secure communicator B encrypts a message with a the encryption key provide by A.
The message is dead dropped to an open storage pool. Only A can then read the message.
B includes their own encryption key in the message to A. A can then encrypt a message using the encryption key from B and dead drops it on the open storage pool.
Lots of secure communicators communicating this way by using the decryption keys to identify the proper destination of the messages allows for secure anonymous communication.
The rest is just scaling, efficiency, commercialisability, reliability and usability.

I have seen a lot of encrypted mechanisms and companies come and go.
Most of them seem to have a problem with law enforcement.
I do not understand what the problem is.
It is not all that difficult to create an encryption infrastructure in such a way as to make it impossible for any individuals providing the infrastructure to be able to compromise the infrastructure.
It is also not all that difficult to create an infrastructure that provides for anonymity to such a degree that even the individuals involved in a communication are unable to identify one another.
Add that to digital currencies that can exchange value through the exchange of information and you have a mechanism that can charge for and be paid for any use of the infrastructure and you can have something that is self funding and commercial.
I do not understand why there are all these secure communication companies that think they need cooperation or permission from a local government to be able to function securely.
Anyone maintaining such an infrastructure should be able to be free to let any interests who want information stored in the infrastructure have all the information they have the technical capacity to retrieve without that having any impact on the security of the information within the infrastructure.
Encryption that is currently known to have no technical possibility of being cracked are available and new ones are constantly being developed.
Any infrastructure that allows for the existence of technical capabilities to violate the security and anonymity of the information and communications within it is just silly.

Consent is the key to managing AI. Consent can be violated by doing something that is not consented to.

Consent can be compromised by encouraging or promoting consent in ways that are not in themselves consented to.

Do not allow anyone to use data without consent to train AI

That deals with actors and authors and other content creators.

Do not allow anyone to use AI to violate anyone's privacy without consent.

AI can be user to figure out information that is not immediately available from surrounding data. Preventing this protects people who want privacy.

Do not permit to use of AI to encourage/cajole/threaten to consent.

This deals with Advertising, lying with deepfakes and any number of activities in the pursuit of getting people to behave in various ways.

Do not use AI to profit ones self.

Having more wealth gives you more freedom than others and hence access to more choices. In most cases this means that there is a reduction in the options for others. Reducing access to resources for anyone restricts what they can consent to and also violates and compromises their consent.

Pretty much every application of AI that anyone ever complains about is violating or compromising the consent of someone.

Unfortunately, violating and compromising consent are endemic to every human activity. It is something that we are good at and and continually getting better at and AI will just enable us to get better and more prolific with.

Along with a tool that tells you what actions everyone else would find least inoffensive to China. Find the action that appears most inoffensive to Chine in other's' opinion, while being maximally actually offensive to China. Perform that action. It helps to be a sociopath.

This is the most purely sarcastic article that I have ever read on slashdot. It has been thoroughly entertaining.

Fresh food at the front to lure passers buy in and tempt you on the way out.
Staples such as milk, eggs and meat at the back.
Put things that are commonly bought in a single shop at opposite sides of the store so that you wander hither and yon through all the branding and packaging advertising.
If they made things orderly so that personal shoppers could efficiently shop for a dozen people at a time, or standardized their pricing systems so that they could easily be compared with other stores, their profits would tumble.
It is these same principles applied to websites that makes the UI so difficult to use. They are not selling the UI. Thy UI is the tool they harvest their prey with. It is not meant to be enjoyed by the cattle.

This student was rather silly to be playing simulated lethal combat games within school grounds. The student was even sillier to post records of the simulated lethal combat to online forums that could be viewed by the students of said school and by those responsible for the safety of the students of said school. The students could quite appropriately experience concern for their safety. The cultural context of the game is not going to be universally shared and so cannot be a guarantee that the other students will be able to recognise that this information does not present a threat to them. The guardians of the school, those responsible for the safety, physical, mental and emotional, of the students, need to take all of these factors into consideration when determining what action to take to enact appropriate protections. Given the difficulties of a rather out of control gun culture, a history of extremely lethal events occurring on a disturbingly regular basis in schools within the USA and the vast level of legislatively enforced uncertainty in the appropriate and effective management of students that may be engaging in activities that may cause others to feel threatened, charging this student with a misdemeanor seems to be the best option available. It might not work, It is probably an over reaction, but it still appears to be the best option to start with. The only way the USA will ever get any control over their uncontrolled gun culture and the corresponding over reactions to these types of silliness is for a referendum to modify the constitution to ameliorate the right to bare arms to a point where appropriate and effective control over the availability and lethality of generally available weapons can be imposed by elected representatives.

Now we just need to find a super glue that is dissolved by this hormone.

And this is why we have patents.
To protect innovators ability to exploit their innovation so that they can be free to innovate some more.
Unfortunately this mechanism has experienced an enormous amount of abuse, and so we come to the counter mechanism of open source.
Thus the best solution maybe to use both..
How you use both is then the question to answer.
This will depend on the technology involved, what component you can choose to control, what components you can make open source, and also on other aspects of your potential business models.

You can support the design of your open source hardware project. Actively doing this keeps the community cohesive and on point. When it comes to supporting the implementation, If you built it, and you sell it, then you support it. If someone else builds it and sells it then they can support it. If the potential customer buys from someone else and asks for your support because the low cost outfit they bought it from cannot help them, then, charge like wounded bulls, be very suspicious of what your are working with, point out all the problems you so conscientiously find and help out as much as you can. This will offset your costs, make you look good, encourage the customer to buy from you in future and make your low cost competitor look incompetent.