[sokoloff]

My gut feeling is that almost every (perhaps exactly every) solution will have worse properties than the current. Putting a centralized group in charge of access to communication and information seems like something that is bound to go poorly, almost surely more poorly than the one in a million risky outcomes like this.

[autoexec]

I'd agree there should be no centralized group in charge of access to communication and information, however for individuals who are unable to care for themselves due low IQ and/or mental illness and who are already living with parents/care takers, those people watching over them should be responsible for monitoring that person's use of the internet and keeping them safe from scammers, abusers, kiwi farms, and police departments who would exploit them the same way they're responsible for keeping them from running out into traffic and burning the house down. In this case, the kid's parents failed in their responsibility to keep their child safe from online threats who (this time) happened to be the police.

We don't need a new system to keep people who are a danger to themselves and others off the internet, we just need the caretakers who are already responsible for them to understand the importance of not neglecting the online activity of those under their care.