You seem to be interpreting the internet’s historically libertarian ethics as not thinking about ethics, rather than what it really was (and is) — an intentional, studied decision to prioritize openness and individual empowerment, instead of trying to enforce safety through prior restraint.

Individual empowerment enables incredible creativity, engenders individual and societal resilience, and leaves space for those who do not fit the norm to contribute their talents in ways we might not otherwise anticipate.

The second — prior restraint to enforce “trust and safety” - requires exerting authoritarian or paternalistic control over others to achieve its aims. In the process, it gives those who prioritize power over others the tools they need to undeservedly secure it, and invariably leads to individual, social, and institutional ossification.

Having things go wrong is a good and necessary thing; a perfect world is a fantastically dull and oppressive one.

These views did not arise from a lack of ethical consideration; they were a very considered ethical foundation on which the internet was originally built. In many respects, it was originally built to stand in opposition (or at least offer an alternative) to the staid and oppressive institutions that prioritize trust and safety.