I think there are different aspects that are both positive and negative stemming from the open Internet. One aspect is the anonymity issues - you are no doubt aware that people who want to behave in ways that may harm others can do so more freely when they are not required to disclose their identity - you can see this on Reddit. On the good side people are able to freely express their ideas, values and thoughts without fear of retaliation and have a sense of privacy. There is more but these are central points.

Another aspect is the autonomous decisions that allow people to decide what is good and bad information of which can be shared via personal experiences and this may be misinforming if taken literally but also informing if seen as it is which is a personal collection of someones thoughts. If the Internet is regulated then we cannot make these decisions and instead someone else makes them - some group/s deemed as 'authorities' who decide on what should and shouldn't be accessed. The abuse of authority is well proven and therefore the risk this imposes is enough to make many fearful of any regulation.

Does it have to be black and white? Good and bad? Can we collaborate on this and decide if some regulation is necessary and if so, what and how is that decided and by whom?

Very interesting subject.

Thank you for posting an interesting question, a question that I have been asking for some time but not in the comprehensive way that you have put it. As much as the internet is targeted to inform, the internet is also used to misinformed. I work on Malaysian politics and in recent years I have seen how the internet is used not only to sell truths but half truths and false claims. I always believe that the internet is a near perfect market of ideas. However we cannot take away the fact that internet users themselves suffer from the problem of perception that paralyze them from making informed judgement and making reasonable comments. I have a few questions.

If one follows the liberal/ market argument and assumes that the internet is a perfect market of ideas with actors having almost symmetrical information, would the free flow of internet ideas settle for some form of market clearing equilibrium? If so how long will such an equilibrium take? Are there mechanisms to ensure that the internet achieves such market clearing equilibrium? Or how do you ensure that there is a perfect market of ideas?

Somebody said (forgot the source, sorry) that the best background for authotorian regimes is democracy. In a democracy people give away information about themselves freely, you only need to collect, sort and use their data. In a dictatorship this would be much more difficult. Also, in his novel "Er ist wieder da..." Timur Vermes claims that political engagement is actually hampered by the fact that even the desolate can afford electronic devices (TVs, DVDs, mobile phones, pay-as-you go cheap Internet in telephone shops), and while playing around with their gadgets, they console themselves rather then going out on the street and protest against social injustice. Some people do use the Internet for organizing themselves (Arab Spring) but most use it as a pacifier, which keeps them calm and gives them the false impression of being in control. No wonder clever authoritarian regimes do not prohibit but actually promote the use of social networks - an excellent resource for sensitive information about the people, their mindsets, intensions, friends, party preferences and (should the need arise) their location.

I think the issue is not the illusion caused by the means of entertainment, but the disappointment of the means of doing politics. The inability of ordinary citizens to make use políticca their interests are effectively represented. Think like weber, the issue is domination. In this perspective, democracy and dictatorship are equivalent when politics is emptied. That way I can compare the popularity of Korean dictator and Chaves in Venezuela. People do not participate in political life, but sympathize with a group or are intimidated by the so-called dictatorship of the majority of Rousseau. The advantage of democracy is open scheme that enables change. However, effective change depends on a lot of things. This logic would say that democracy was a hostage of its principles, such as the free expression of opinion. The policy is a little different of democracy, is the possibility to participate in government and to influence it. Could not participate either as observers of the government in view of the sensitive businesses that occur out of sight. So let's play football.

Before responding to the question, it is imperative to define what an open society really is.

Yes, the Internet seems ubiquitous, and it opens venues for people to communicate, collaborate and participate "democratically"; however, this is premised on the point that everyone in the world has access to it. What is not really addressed is that, a large part of the Global South still lacks access to Information and Communication Technologies and the internet. Moreover, even with access, does it mean that people can "freely" participate? Activities and extent of involvement in the internet may further show social cleavages and polarization; people who are well-off optimizes their use of the internet, while others do not, hence raising the question on participation and "democracy".

I have noticed at least two points that repeatedly appear in discussions about the relation between the Internet and a more open, democratic society: the question concerning affordable, and free, uncensured, Internet access, and the question whether the Internet can change the general weberian source of domination - the ability to take the initiative.

Another point is that, although these two questions may be key to conceive of the possibilities of any political action or public sphere (whether or not "plugged"), the Internet seems to accelerate the pace of the political action, making it, at the same time, more difuse and ephemerous,in the sense that it becomes more difficult to maintain the focus on any issue under debate for a long time.