[CinnamonTea]

We recognize that most governments are responsible to their citizens to provide for their well-being, i.e. to protect them from physical harm or malice. Should that dip into the cyber world as well? Assuming that the tools were available for government oversight or "patrolling" of the Internet, is it going to be inevitable that government agencies (or other such institutions) will have to take a much more active stance in monitoring behavior on the Internet?

Pizzagate is an example of how banter and rumor-mongering online can lead to dangerous real-life consequences. And there are countless instances where people become demonized and hounded because things get blown out of proportion and online users feel they can be as aggressive as they like without repercussion.

It's almost like the American Wild West, where townsfolk are terrorized by roaming bandits. Except, unlike the Wild West, there aren't any U.S. marshals to keep law and order in check. Do we need to move to a system where there are police-like institutions which extend online?

[Igor Antunov]

So shut down dissent against the official narrative? Protect the media establishment and the elites feeding them focus tested materials? Shut down discussion about journalists handing politicians debate questions before a debate?

That codespeak in Podesta's emails is confirmed as such used by certain groups according to the FBI and the emails are treated as real. Not a single wikileaks email has been denied. That pizza shop owner's instagram page that was deleted didn't have compromising pictures of children? Of guys with shirts labeled 'I love children-animu baby face pic' I must have dreamed it when I was looking at it then. If the media says it didn't happen...

So we should shut down such discussion...because feels? We should create a list of 'fake news' and declare it off limits and ridicule people who dare read it and talk about it? Reddit should censor this story, and refuse to redact prior lying articles still at the top of some subs?:

I don't think so.

[CinnamonTea]

Of course, in practicality any government oversight over speech online is a very dangerous road to go down, for all the reasons you listed.

At the same time, if someone's life becomes ruined because of the echo chamber effect of internet mobs or people get killed because someone else became radicalized, provided by the easy vehicle of the internet, do we shrug and accept those losses as acceptable casualties? I think it's well recognized that the state of how the internet interacts with people's lives can be extremely damaging and destructive. Regardless of what the alternative might be, that is a valid and poignant concern.

Some internet sites and moderators already monitor behavior, ban certain types of speech, or try to limit those negative effects. A government institution adopting those responsibilities would be highly problematic, for all the reasons that we are suspicious of government overreach. But again, it seems highly problematic for the government to have complete control over how the entire economy operates and no one questions the reasons behind why we have central banks.