Hatred can be the status quo of the Internet. The Internet may just be a collection of information, but it is continually being shaped by user actions. The Internet is also increasingly taking a large part of our lives, to the point that what happens there also affects the "real" world. We effectively live in two worlds now which influence each other.
And like all systems, the Internet is subject to entropy, and to an extent, I agree with you: restricting information is harsh, a better design of the Internet that leads to better presentation of information is much more preferable.
But how this Internet 2.0 looks like, to be honest I have no idea. I see your point about categorisation but even Reddit can spill into other ecosystems which may have less categorisation, like a meme gone viral on Twitter. Most of these ecosystems are designed with a strong characteristic for virality built in - connectedness that is further enhanced by a sophisticated understanding of human psychology and targeted applications (e.g. personalisation.) (Dear lord that is mouthy.)
And that's the big question really. With super connectedness, and entropy, is it inevitable then that hatred eventually becomes the status quo?
That is exactly the problem. The most popular communication platforms on the internet are Facebook and Twitter. These platforms do not have enough categorization. Because of that fact, those who choose to get information through these platforms are vulnerable to fake news, targeted advertising, gossip, etc.
We need a decentralized internet to protect from censorship, but we also need decentralized platforms to categorize information (and communication) and thereby promote education and creation.
Internet 2.0 is something that I struggle with, there's just way too many factors to consider. On paper (or mind) a decentralised internet looks neat, but making it real is akin to putting a man on mars. Platforms, for one, are commercialised so that they can afford to be sustained. They are also designed to attract a very large active user base, which is again ultimately commercial but would the Internet have billions of users today if there was no YouTube, no Facebook?
But I guess the advantage of having Internet 1.0 is that there are many learnt lessons and many good ideas up for grabs. I would also like to see people more free in making decisions and less prone to instant gratification, rather than being stuck in the "hooked" cycles so fine-tuned by current platforms. But, sigh, that also means a more mature world. I know many who overlook Hacker News by virtue of its "old fashioned" UI...
The internet is not a collection of action, rather, it is a collection of information.
If we do anything to restrict information, that very action restricts innovation and understanding.
> Most people on the Internet are actually spending their time in a small number of ecosystems, like Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube.
The very fact that most internet users spend their time on centralized networks lends itself as a perfect example of how controlled, but uncategorized information networks are detrimental to discussion. Imagine all of Reddit were on one subreddit. The lack of categorization would lead to an unruly, and useless platform for communication. The reason Reddit is so successful is that it promotes specific conversation about any topic, without restriction. The only way that is feasible is through categorization, via subreddits.
> we need an Internet 2.0
We need an "internet 2.0" to promote the ecosystem that existed with "internet 0.1". We need decentralization (like ZeroNet, IPFS, etc.) to promote free, categorized, distribution of information.