Somewhat tangentially, I think that the two expectations stated starting at 9;30 is a very good explanation of the outrage a lot of Redditors had when subreddits like r/FPH were banned. Even though lots of people personally hated those communities they were disappointed and angered because they had thought that Reddit was built as a public space populated by a community that respected free speech (and with good reason, I think, given the kind of branding reddit had as an anti-censorship space) when in reality Reddit had slowly been transformed into a private space. This brings up the question of how do we create the public spaces that Mike says we can reasonably expect to exist, seeing as individuals apparently can't be trusted.

I'm also somewhat dubious about the "as long as it's not illegal" caveat from 9:45. This kind of legalistic mindset assumes that American law is fundamentally just and effectively states that the Internet is part of America's domain, and American law should unquestioningly apply. The fact that that is the case is totally different from advocating that it should be the case. Perhaps because Mike is American (as is most of the audience, including me) he feels that the law (i.e. American law) can justly be enforced on the internet, as they are also, to him, enforced IRL. But switching American laws with laws of other countries, especially more authoritarian ones reveals that this legalistic attitude of "follow the law because it is the law" isn't really something we should adhere to.

Practically speaking, if we take this attitude assuming Russian or Iranian law we get an Internet devoid of LGBTQ content and support structures, which I doubt many people would actively support. Hell, if we took this attitude seriously today, r/trees wouldn't even be a thing. Especially with laws on net neutrality, TTP, TTIP, SOPA, PIPA, and the like cropping up more and more often in America, I am very averse to the idea the internet being a de facto domain of America.