IMHO: What happened since John Perry Barlow's statement is that the Internet shifted from a technological and social experiment[0] to an extremely high value as

IMHO: What happened since John Perry Barlow's statement is that the Internet shifted from a technological and social experiment[0] to an extremely high value asset that attracts powerful actors. In the former state, ethics and good faith suffice. John Postel could hand out IP addresses, and people followed his lead to 'be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept'. Forums like Usenet were a small group of geeks - read the Etiquette FAQ, and just don't be an ahole. 'Assume good faith' is a guideline somewhere (I forget where). But when there is a high value asset to be had, the economics of money and power take over. There are bad people who will ignore all ethics and public good and take every advantage they can, driving their competition to do the same in order to survive. When Facebook was a bunch of college friends sharing stories and pictures, those people didn't care. When it's a way to exert unprecedented influence on the public, that gets intense attention from government propaganda operations and their corporate counterparts. It was predictable that it would happen. In the latter environment, 'don't be an ahole' doesn't work any more; I don't think Putin read the Usenet Etiquette FAQ (and his people read the HN guidelines only to find a way to use them to their advantage). Regulations become necessary to protect the weak and all of society from bad actors. [0] There's probably a better way to conceptualize it, but I can't think of it right this moment.