the issue is of course, and that's what children don't realise, that seemingly arbitrary rules exist for good reason. In this particluar case it's because children are not able to delay immediate gratification. And I, as an adult, am in fact still constantly obligated to participate in farely arbitrary rituals, at work or otherwise.
>Are you calling them immature, youthful, or something else?
I'm saying they often exist in an environment that is very isolated from larger obligations to a community. The hacker and tech CEO as a middle aged man in a hoodie, often obsessed with youth and in a sort of state of permanent teenage rebellion, persists for a reason.
> that consider abstract concepts such as society and morality as more important than the personal freedoms of a human
society is not an abstract concept, the need for cooperation, order, safety, is present in every decision every day. It's individual freedom that is an abstract concept. In the case of cyber-libertarianism that is prominent in the tech world it's arguably not even 30 years old, and it only functions within a severely restricted space, both physically (say in the valley) or digitally (in some corner of the internet).
>What is this supposed to mean in the context of the internet?
it means that, if the public internet is supposed to be a healthy space, individuals who harm the well being of the larger community need to be able to be held accountable for their anti-social behaviour.
>Which goes back to the point about lgbt rights.
it's true that communities and social cohesion can sometimes unjustly punish people, however well functioning systems are capable of reform, and this is no reason to abolish social order altogether. To put it another way, do you think that within the LGBT community, laws against hate speech on online platforms are popular or not popular? Marginalised groups in particular see the value in collectively maintaining order, they least of all are going to believe in mythical individualism.
Maybe you were a lucky child where that was always the case. For myself and many people I know a lot of the rules/commands leveled at us were genuinely arbitrary, and the presence of arbitrary rules like that has a way of delegitimizing ones that only seem arbitrary.
Would you be happy if right now someone forced you to go to bed at arbitrary times when you are not tired and potentially had work to do?
> who in many ways were juvenile adults
Are you calling them immature, youthful, or something else?
> a more adult one
No, a more authoritarian/collectivist one that consider abstract concepts such as society and morality as more important than the personal freedoms of a human. It takes out the individualism from a person and only considers them as a cog in a bigger machine which can be replaced at will. This mentality is what led us to absurd laws such as the ones that forbid sodomy, or alcohol, or any other victimless crime really.
> it also consists of maintaining enough order so that authentic expression of freedom is possible
What is this supposed to mean in the context of the internet?
> Social approval should be incorporated into law
Which goes back to the point about lgbt rights. Until recently most people were against them in the west and most people are still against them outside of the west. You should not need your village's permission to commit a victimless act.
> because places that don't do it become uninhabitable
Should it not be up to the "rulers" (that is the server owners) of these services to decide their rules then? It is not like it is the business of someone outside of the community whether said community becomes inhabitable.
> as the current public internet increasingly is
You say increasingly, yet it is only recently that there has been adaption of rules to satisfy the wider social pressure to censor.