Good team, developers, user,
surely a sensible topic under so called ‘internet society’ but maybe reasonable to reflect a little on it differently and lesser ‘selfish’.
As such is use-able with bad motivation as well, just may one think of 'internet society’s beloved leaks to 'dismantle the ‘bad ones’, if such isn’t possible, how would a ‘internetian’ react on such?
(guessing that certain meta-topics are welcome to get also more global aspects refreshed)
I think that private interests are often disguised under laudable public interest initiatives.
For example, in Europe there is a law in force that gives private companies (Google Facebook & C.) the possibility to monitor all messages exchanged between their users to find child pornography material and consequently report them to the competent authorities. This mass monitoring is performed both automatically with AI algorithms, and through technicians.
Delta Chat protects against prying eyes (thanks to e2e encryption), but like all tools it can be used maliciously.
Unfortunately, greater privacy is inversely proportional to the difficulty of being able to find those who make illegal use of it. 
Surely common ideas, good Andreas. Say one feeling secure in able to hide, yet how does he feel if getting known that secure is hide up for him. Isn’t a ‘fake’ security of able to hide not much more dangerous, inviting to all kinds of unskillful and bad things, reducing moral and ethical shame?
Sure, industry and consume, business at large, benefits and so suggests it intensively. ‘They wouldn’t know about your habits, lust. No need to worry, eat.’
Yet, at the same time, actually not secure at all at the same time. So catching up double: increasing debt and maintain snares hidden.
Ones own nasty ‘Bauernfängerei’, or?
Hiding or feeling “not getting caught” shouldn’t lead to bad deeds, as long as a person knows that any action on the internet will be reflected in reality.
Harming a person via the internet causes moral or economic damage to a person.
If a person is without morals, he will never be either in hiding or in public.
You should be more respectful and ask yourself, before doing anything on the internet, if it can harm anyone. 
Reflections might not include the most binding harm one can cause oneself: consume. Anonymity is something that supports becoming very dependent and indebted. Or, good Andreas.
And ‘shoulds’ aren’t really based on cause and effect but mostly trying to get two of which one needs to abound to get the other. One without a reason to hide, why would he desire after it?
There are three governing principles as one’s protections from wrong doing: the Self, the world (big brother) and the moral-teaching. Hidden my good hide them all.
The possibility of hiding from that (wrong) sense of security, like when as a child you hid behind your mother’s legs when a stranger asked you a question.
What is missing, in addition to good moral teaching, is the correct use of technologies.
The Internet is a tool and as such it must be treated, it must not become the place to avoid facing the outside world.
Communicating face to face with a person is tantamount to getting naked: non-verbal communication is more truthful than verbal communication. The non-verbal communicates one’s moods. This is why the internet and devices often become a refuge and this becomes an almost nagging need, a need for protection (perhaps from oneself).
From another point of view, the possibility of hiding from the eyes of the big brother avoids that the feelings, the emotions that one communicates to people that one loves and are distant, do not become money. It is bad to know that one’s moods are commodified.
At this moment I think of my child: before seeking refuge with the devices, I am making him understand that there is nothing wrong with having defects or at least, that we consider defects and that instead it distinguishes us from other people and that we have afraid to show why we feel judged.
It is nice to know that I can communicate (even away from the prying eyes of the big brother) with my distant relatives, but there is nothing more beautiful than communicating the joy of seeing them again with a single, simple glance.
It’s a realm of existence, a fine-material world, and surely already main source of most even physical pains and harm, good Andreas. In measures of human ‘nations’, the largest and most powerful exist there (yet not ruled by either kings or governments but businessman), yet common laws and regulations, very all-day ones haven’t found roots anywhere. It isn’t that much a problem for one who is clear about that there is nobody in charge, and nowhere a shelter, but most would just seek for exactly that.
Of what counts as one’s protective speech, of what is right speech, is for sure a requirement for one not seeking refuge in algorithms, good Andreas. If interested: right speech.
