> The problem with free speech on the Internet is that our human minds have not sufficiently evolved to even remotely begin to understand just how fundamentally

> The problem with free speech on the Internet is that our human minds have not sufficiently evolved to even remotely begin to understand just how fundamentally the Internet changes our perception of our fellow humans. Dunbar's number shows that we're only able to keep track of a very small number of ongoing human relationships relative to the Internet-connected population of the planet, and at a societal level we're used to only hearing ideas from people around us, and those in published works or in mass media such as radio and television. Yet now anyone, literally anyone, can go online and proclaim whatever they want in certain online public spaces. Another fundamental issue is that The News is all about reporting abberational events. When non-local awareness is ubiquitous (via the Internet and social media) literally any statistically improbable event can be reported upon anywhere and treated unconsciously as a statistical constant by its audience. In other words, people in California get to hear all the improbable dirty laundry about Texas and vice-versa, but we don't get to see the banal, quotidian existence of these places that allows us to relate to them as fellow humans, fellow Americans, etc.