Hi Phil,
To be fair, while nation states constrain what is allowable,
there an array of other constraints in play which are perhaps even
more forceful. They include what the marketplace will support or
allow; what industry groups will support or allow; what legal
systems will allow or support, especially relating to competition
policy and normative obligations. Consider what will occur if
Sec. 230 disappears.
You miss out people like myself: Technologists with a personal agenda and independent means to pursue it. The Internet has always been shaped by hacktivism.
My sense is that few IETF participants have a sense of what is
ensuing through the new EU legislation as the new regulations and
directives begin to come into force in 2023. The free-for-all
days of TCP/IP disruptive services and providers layered on top of
other networks without controls or encumbrances will be coming to
an end. The secondary effect will be to diminish the IETF's
already diminished value proposition. On the other hand, it will
not stop people who engage in the IETF for the personal pleasure
obtained there. It is perhaps ironically a bit like the new U.S.
Congress.
The US view of government is strongly shaped by the legacy of the slaver rebellion of 1776 and the subsequent civil war. People who strongly believe it is their right to own other people as property tend to see government as the problem. People who strongly object to that notion are likely to see government actions such as the Mansfield decision, the Quock Walker case, etc. as guaranteeing freedom.
The free for all in anti-censorship is not over, it has hardly begun. Now that the distraction from BTC etc. is coming to its inevitable end, the field is cleared for a new generation of cryptography that provides personal privacy and freedom.
The interesting question that is raised here is where does the line lie between what is a legitimate role for government action and what is not?
My personal view is that it lies in the locus of collective action. Government is a form of collective action that regulates society by establishing a monopoly on the use of force.
According to my view, the individual has the absolute right to do any action that affects nobody but themselves.
Between those poles, there are many gradations. There are cases in which we (correctly) assert the right of government to regulate interactions between two consenting individuals, especially but not only if one is a minor. But the locus of interest relevant to Internet regulation lies on the opposite side: To what extent should government act to regulate collective action by institutions, corporations, trades unions, etc.
I think it is rather obvious that government does have a legitimate interest in preventing collective power being used to establish a de-facto monopoly on the provision of Internet communication services.
