>This is also an accurate description of a lynching.
No, it isn't. It's an accurate description of policing. A standard practice in human societies. If you think not letting anonymous people talk to children amounts to the French Revolution or lynching maybe get out some more. Not how the real world works. Never has, never will. People tolerated it on 90s internet chatrooms because it was all middle aged dudes, doesn't fly when it becomes an actual town square.
"Public messages risk a wide audience seeing the message and recognizing it’s inappropriate, then taking action against the person, reporting them, or highlighting the inappropriate messages for mob reprisals."
You're defending this, as policing?
> If you think not letting anonymous people talk to children
Follow this rational to the end state, and we should all have to keep our kitchen knives chained to the counter because they might be used to stab someone.
Let's ban chemistry cause someone might make a bomb.
Everyone should wear helmets all the time cause they might trip and bump their heads.
Dont tell me you're saving the children with the digital version of "papers please". Dont pass a law where "parenting" is the real and easy solution.
Go watch the classic black and white "Frankenstein" for a portrayal of mob justice. Torches and pitchforks!
How about the French Revolution... where the head of the mob meets the same end, with the loss of his head?
> Self governing communities on the internet need some means to monitor themselves just like they do offline.
This is also an accurate description of a lynching. You think we're doing better on line, see reddit getting the Boston bomber wrong.