I do see this overall situation being at least partially consequence of the early internet community thinking that internet could live outside any traditional s

I do see this overall situation being at least partially consequence of the early internet community thinking that internet could live outside any traditional structures and especially laws. There was this strong sense that we could forge a new ultra-liberal virtual world, free of the shackles of the physical world. In retrospect that way of thinking now feels pretty naive. That led to outright hostility towards any ideas of government-rooted electronic identity programs, or anything resembling that. The reason I think government identities are significant here is two-fold. Firstly it left an vacuum for identities that email, despite its obvious shortcomings, then filled. Secondly, weak unconnected identities provide poor means of dealing with abuse. Sibling threads discuss how kicking people out of e.g. banking or rental involves some legal processes or something comparable. But in those cases both the barrier of abuse is higher because usually there are real consequences, and doing whatever legal process is more practical because the other party is not just some John Doe. In contrast the scale of abuse something like Gmail faces is pretty staggering, and the ability for the operator (Google) to do anything about it is somewhat limited, so it is somewhat understandable how they ended up so trigger happy with bans. I posit that if we were able to implement real consequences to the actual abusers, then we well-behaved users could have stronger standing to demand better treatment for ourselves and we would be less likely to face the current level of opaque algorithmic bans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technolibertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technolibertarianism