I do not think humanity would be better off if, to take this theory to its most extreme conclusion, the internet became a collection of sites whitelisted by the various governments around the world.

There was a grammatical ambiguity in my sentence. I think we would be better off with a regulated internet than with no internet.

I think I got you the first time, actually. My point was that humanity might actually be worse off with an internet that is regulated in a totalitarian manner than without an internet.

Sorry, I only noticed the potential ambiguity after I made the comment and I wasn't sure which reading you were responding to.

Perhaps you are right. But everybody having the ability to communicate cheaply with everybody else is a new phenomenon. We got along for a good long time without it.

I would think that the government's ability to control popular opinion was much stronger in the industrial age than in any time since. We got through that period okay.

I think the internet is awesome, and I hope people fight like hell to preserve it. But if some controls are placed on it, I doubt it presages a new Dark Age. Also, I think there will be some lasting benefit due to the reduced cost of global communications and coordination, even if blogs are outlawed.

As we live more and more of our lives online, this control is tantamount to having powerful cameras and microphones in every cafe, on every street corner, at home, in every public and private space, recording everything that happens in a convenient, searchable format.

If this was the case in meatspace, it would certainly have a chilling effect on freedom of thought and discussion.

This may still add up to a net positive for us, but for the next generation(s), who will live more and more of their lives online, the implications are disastrous and, likely, a net negative compared to no internet.

I grant the possibility.