""I mean cat images aside. They are always worth it."
That was almost worth not down-voting you, because, well, cats rule. But the rest, yuk: have a downvote."
Ok, far better to expound on yuk and explain where you feel I am wrong to ask the questions or intimate what I had.
The nature of the internet means that people will use it both 'rightly' and 'wrongly'. Which are both subjective. There is no moral arbiter of what can exist on the internet, regardless of what anyone says. Once something is up, if someone wants it up it will stay up. Legal or anarchistic. Whatever you *think* should happen, in a singular governmental or private organisation you have rules. Those rules, for the most part, both arose and allow that social structure to exist without resorting to a free for all, in which things couldn't function well.
No, put aside, for a moment, the different, ahem, philosophical ideas from various locations, the idea that we can, to some degree, have various rules that allow for a balance of process that works for all.
Will this get abused by the more powerful? You betcha.
Does this allow those with less backing or resources to also take advantage of this? Defintely.
However, current norms within the global make-up mean that whatever is setup, will equally be abused and used justly in varying measures. The only other constant is anything can exist on the internet. In which case, usually only the powerful have any hope of getting changes. And they do, to protect themselves, companies, governments or those with Law firms on retainer.
At the same time that also levels out the playing field, in that it gives an avenue for those that fight against those more powerful than them to use the internet/web as a platform to get arguments or injustices out.
Either method has pros and cons from any position, except anarchists (Which I am not necessarily against, btw). The argument that any kind of rules applied to the interwebs should not be applied because it allows for precedent, and will be used to control people and play into the hands of the powerful is not really a mature argument. Whatever tool available, the printing press, newspapers, popular opinion, has always been thus controlled to some degree to that party. But at the same time, there has also been protections used to reduce abuses.
Does mean to say those abuses won't happen, but the same laws that restrict you also restrict those others.
Should the internet be allowed to have whatever content it wants?
No - obviously because there are some sick things out there. But whatever rules are in play, various justices will still get out, because a law is just a statement that is used to justify actions that come about in consequence. Doesn't stop anyone from doing it.
If google *just* indexed the web based on a publically available algorithm, I doubt this law would even be thought about. But then we would also be swamped with people gaming the net. Then there would be other search engines that do other things to filter out what they don't want you to see, or include what it is they think you want to see. And they would be gamed, and so on.
The internet will end up regulated, whether we like it or not. To take an oposing position of 'regulation is bad' because of what it can end up with is to not engage and fight a losing battle. In which case you will end up on whatever underground network results to get around that regulation. (Dark web etc, I hate that expression btw).
But to say 'Yuk'? I would rather you could downvote me as many times as you wanted.
This maybe a little disjointed, I apologise for that. It is early, still, and I wrote a lot and I should edit this but I don't have time.