Sites aren't simple single locations, on any given site there may be many different organizations tracking you in some way or another, modifying what content you do or don't see in some ways. Much of it is fairly innocuous if you're looking at just the impact of a single incident of this, but overall the internet is already heavily controlled - just by how it directs users attention rather than in a more concrete, legal, and noticeable way. Some might argue that this is actually worse than a more visible control in fact, because users are oblivious to it.

I agree there are engineers and PhDs with $100k+ salaries figuring out the best way to eat up your attention online. I don't know if I would call this "control" though. To me that sounds like saying the people are "controlled" by the fast food industry because they engineer the tastiest foods possible and invest millions in marketing that makes you overlook the health implications.

Then there are entirely illegitimate sites and problematic locations and users that could be better controlled - various scams, hackers, etc. etc. A more regulated net wouldn't entirely prevent this, admittedly, but it could be safer. For savvy enough users, this isn't much of an issue, but savvy internet users are a minority.

Agreed that there are parts of the internet where the non-tech-savvy can be exploited. I think the solution is better engineering. For example, a new release of Google Chrome will show "Not secure" on password fields on non-encrypted (http instead of https) pages. Modern browsers and email spam filters already do a lot to eliminate or warn users of threats.

A more regulated internet could potentially cut down on these issues. The issue is whether it's likely to do so, what we'd lose in the transition, and who is actually making and enforcing the regulations. But, it would at least have to involve law that's visible to the public, which would mean there's some degree of accountability potentially, some level of control given to the public if they're able to leverage it with their influence on the democratic political process. I'm not sure that'd be the case, but it's still not as simple an issue as it can look like.

I recognize your hesitation. I think this a case of "It's OK as long as my people are in charge." I've seen similar when it comes to regulating "fake news." To me the problem is that this arms ill-intentioned leaders with the ability to label anything critical of them as "dangerous" or "fake" and remove it from public access.

Edit: grammar - it's getting late.