What I don’t like with Matrix is the load it puts on the server. It basically copies 100% of a room content to any server having one or more users registered in the room.

Retroactively?? I'm sure that one could configure this to not be the case... no?

So if you’re on a small server, and one user decides to join a 10k+ large room, your server may collapse under the load as it tries to stay in sync with the room’s activity.

"Collapse" meaning what, exactly? Do you mean run out of storage from the volume of content, or that processing all the messages is too taxing?

XMPP, on the other hand, has proven to be highly scalable

How does it scale differently than Matrix?

I’m not even sure I want a messaging account linked to any of my Fediverse accounts…

Out of curiosity, why do you say this?

Liberals are defending it because it has historic roots in the founding of the nation

The Gadsden Flag is a much more powerful symbol than simply a historic prop. It encompasses ideas of personal liberty, and individualism. It is essentially a symbol of Libertarianism.

The Gadsden flag is primarily used as a symbol of Libertarianism -- it encompasses ideas of personal liberty, and individualism. But you are right -- the Gadsden flag made its first appearance in the American Revolutionary War.

Anyone waving that thing around now is either a reenactor, or a poser cosplaying as a tough guy.

A "reenactor"? While, yes, the flag was first used in the continental army, nowadyas, it has moved quite far from simply being used as a historical prop.

At this point, much like the Confederate Navy Jack, it has been co-opted to stand for racism and hatred.

In my opinion, most people that say that the Gadsden flag represents "racism and hatred" most likely take all their information on the symbol from the fearmongering media.

It exists.

Agreed. The collective can only be so long as each individual contained within it is equally free. Inequalities of individual liberty within the collective begets a fundamentally oppressive structure.

The Gadsden flag is not opposed to the freedom of the collective; liberty for the individual does not necessitate an oppressive structure, but, instead, the collective can only be free if each individual is equally free.

The fact that you have stated this shows that there is a grassroots desire for this movement. If you truly wish to restore the flag -- as I do -- then you mustn't wait for someone else to do it for you, but instead you should take action yourself; stand up for what you believe in.

There is nothing inherently oppressive about saying "Don't tread on me.". Individual liberty does not beget an oppressive structure within the collective. An individual should not stand behind the flag in good conscience if the believe that their liberties trump those of others.

Being individually free does not necessitate an oppressive structure within the collective -- if all individuals are free, then the collective must also be free.

One must still not forget that their liberties do not trump the liberties of others. Freedom is something we enjoy as a collective. If there is inequality in this then the collective is no longer free, but is, instead, oppressive.

In short, the Gadsden flag is not about one being free to trample on the rights of others, but, instead, upholding the freedoms of the collective by respecting the liberties of each unique individual. Inequality in freedom is oppression.

Would you mind pointing out what I misunderstood?

Look up how some people fought seat belt laws.

Seat belt laws are not an equivalent example. Unless one has fellow passengers, not wearing a seat-belt is of no risk to anyone but oneself.

Just like masks and vaccines they’re not actually doing much most of the time

Then why enforce rules when there is no risk to anyone? To enforce a rule is to say that there is an aggression that is being controlled.

Speed limits, and seat belts are not equivelant examples. A speed limit is a restriction on risk to others, and property, a seatbelt is a reduction on the risk to only oneself, unless one has passengers, but even that has its logical limits. I can perhaps see the parallel you are drawing with speed limits, but I'm not entirely sure that it is necessarily an accurate comparison to make. To speed requires willful intent to endanger. As such, I could see it being argued that it is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Not wearing a mask, however, is really only willful intent to endanger anothor if one is knowingly ill, and willfully spreads it to others (and, if so, it should be punished accordingly); however, if one is not knowingly ill, then there is no aggression.