Q: “To what degree, and in what manner, should the internet be regulated?”
To what degree, and in what manner, should the internet be regulated to regulate anti-social and parasitic behavior, particularly in online dating (if it is to exist at all), social media and online communities? Also, should legal features also exist on these apps, like suing for defamation, and should there be international standards and ways to manage disputes between individuals from different nations? Relevant domains include online dating, online discourse and speech, content moderation, and determining what types of online activity should not be permitted. Jordan Peterson often discusses this, often related to online anonymity (which he says allows this) and the influence of individuals with dark tetrad traits (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, sadism, and narcissism) to use it for their dark objectives and expresses their dark traits. He has stated something approximating that nobody has figured out how to properly regulate the internet.
Short answer (decidable):
-
treat the internet as an informational commons, not a feelings forum.
-
Permit any speech that is truthful under warranty;
-
throttle or tax anonymous reach;
-
prohibit parasitism (fraud, defamation, brigading) by restoring liability and restitution in proportion to harm.
Result
-
Platforms become insurers and record-keepers;
-
users choose identity/liability tiers;
-
courts (or bonded arbitration) enforce reciprocity across borders.
The necessary change is extending the involuntary warranty we already impose on goods and services to amplified speech and transactions.
Cause → consequence → function
-
Cause: scale converts gossip into industrialized lying. Unwarrantied amplification monetizes falsehood and externalizes costs into the informational commons. Necessary correction: testimonial due diligence and warranty for public (amplified, monetized, or political) speech.
-
Consequence: without liability, predators specialize in deception (what you call dark-tetrad behaviors), and platforms profit from irreciprocity. Western law solved analogous problems by tort, defamation, oath, jury—i.e., truth under liability. Sufficient remedy: make online behavior pass the same reciprocity and warranty gates.
-
Function: operationalize “free warrantied speech” instead of “free speech without costs.” Restore defamation and require restitution for harm to demonstrated interests in the commons.
A) Identity, reach, and liability tiers (users choose the trade-off)
-
Anonymous: read + low-reach post; no ads; no political amplification; no accusations; no commercial solicitation. Reason: no counterparty for liability → minimize upstream harm. (Visibility preserved, externalities minimized.)
-
Pseudonymous (bonded): higher reach if you post under a platform-held bond or insurance that funds restitution for proven harms (defamation, fraud). (Contingent freedom; insured risk.)
-
Real-name (verified + warrantied): maximum reach/commercial/political privileges conditioned on testimonial due diligence for factual assertions and offers. (Freedom proportional to warranty.)
B) Platform duties (they’re running a commons)
-
Duty of care as insurer: log evidence, preserve trails, offer bonded arbitration, pay when users default; recover from user bonds. (The platform sells insured reach, not unpriced virality.)
-
Defamation/false-light switch: reinstate defamation for amplified claims; platform provides a fast counter-speech + escrowed-restitution workflow. (Truth under liability instead of censorship.)
-
Algorithmic warranty: if you curate/recommend, you accept proportionate liability for foreseeable harms—same as a publisher of ads or financial products would under tort. (Publishing ≠ common carriage.)
C) Moderation by law, not priesthood
-
Replace moralizing with justiciable categories: fraud, incitement to actionable harm, defamation, doxxing, brigading, impersonation, commercial misrepresentation. Each maps to restitution schedules under tort. (Decidable, operational, reciprocal.)
-
Evidence standard = testimonial truth: realism, naturalism, operationality, due-diligence warranty—precisely the same tests we use for responsible scientific or commercial claims.
D) Online dating (if it exists at all)
-
Two-track market: (1) low-liability social browsing (no claims, no promises); (2) bonded courtship with verified age/sex/intent, consent-logging, STI/result attestations, and escrow for costly deceptions. False claims trigger automatic restitution from user bond. (Insurance replaces theater.)
-
Reputation = insured testimony: ratings are statements under warranty, not anonymous gossip; platforms must filter unwarrantied criticism as irreciprocal pollution of the informational commons.
E) Social media and communities
-
Throttle unbonded virality; privilege insured testimony; demote inflationary grammar and outrage that fails due-diligence tests. (We reward contribution; we tax noise.)
-
Distinguish dissent from sedition: protected dissent = truthful, warrantied, and without external principal; coordinated deceit with external alignment crosses into punishable offense. (Visibility, reciprocity, sovereignty preserved.)
F) Legal features inside apps
-
Yes: in-app defamation and fraud claims with bonded arbitration and exportable judgments; liability proportional to demonstrated harm; loser-pays to deter nuisance. (Courts for the commons, speed for the parties.)
-
Cross-border disputes: default to domicile law of the alleged victim for harms to person/reputation; require platforms to hold multi-jurisdictional bonding and to honor arbitration awards across signatory standards of natural-law reciprocity. (Sovereignty respected; enforcement tractable.)
G) International standards (minimum viable nomocracy online)
-
Baseline: reciprocity (no parasitism), testimonial truth (due-diligence warranty), and computable restitution. States opt-in by treaty; platforms that serve opt-in citizens must meet the standard or face blocking + surety forfeiture. (Market of polities forces convergence.)
Why anonymity “causes” the mess—and what survives
-
Anonymity is compatible with listening and low-reach speaking; it is not compatible with accusation, solicitation, or political persuasion at scale without warranty. Therefore, anonymity remains for consumption and low-risk speech; insured identity is necessary for influence. (Freedom preserved; parasitism priced.)
-
Mandate identity/liability tiers; require platforms to sell insured reach as a product.
-
Restore defamation, fraud, and impersonation remedies with fast, bonded arbitration.
-
Require testimonial due diligence for amplified, monetized, or political content.
-
Institute evidence logging and exportable judgments; enforce loser-pays.
For dating: verified intent tracks, consent logs, and deception restitution from bonds. -
Cross-border: adopt reciprocity treaty for informational harms and platform surety.(All steps convert undecidable moralizing into decidable, insurable exchanges.)
You don’t need new censors; you need old law—truth under warranty, reciprocity under tort, and platforms as insurers of the informational commons. That combination is necessary and sufficient to suppress anti-social parasitism while preserving maximal speech and association online.
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-19 17:54:26 UTC
Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/2002075063311556647
