I certainly agree with the notion that the current iteration of "tech kings" and their minions are not so ideally adapted to the role of "social guardians" that

I certainly agree with the notion that the current iteration of "tech kings" and their minions are not so ideally adapted to the role of "social guardians" that has been thrust upon them. But...maybe it's like having kids -- you're never ready. You just have to make it work somehow. But I disagree with the invocation of "this is a complex topic" to sort of muddy the waters of what is or is not terrorism. That ambiguity gives wriggle room for terrorists to slip in and justify their acts which can't be allowed. It's pretty clear to me when I switch on the news and see Manchester, or Bataclan, or the south of France or Charlie Hebdo, or Al Shabbab, or basically anyone doing this brutal medieval stuff is terrorism. I don't really want to wade into the Israeli Palestinian thing except to say that, as in Northern Ireland, sometimes there is this financial incentive, to both sides, for conflicts to simmer for a long time at low-temperature -- if peace is declared, the money stops flowing. And in such a situation, it pays to muddy the waters, since both sides want to seem justified to keep the money flowing. I am certainly no expert on this ME issue, this is, IMHO, a factor. But this sort of incentivized conflict is, IMHO, entirely different to the non-state terrorism we are all aware of today.