Ignoring the problems of global interconnectedness doesn't make them go away. Information can be weaponized and used against you in ways that are difficult to detect and prevent. We know that propaganda, like advertising, is highly effective, and the internet is the best medium we've invented yet for broadcasting it. At what point do you prioritize issues of national security that threaten your society and way of life, over your perceived freedom to consume funny memes and dancing videos? It's increasingly clear that an unrestricted internet carries existential risks, but most people also wouldn't want to live under totalitarianism either. So there's a delicate line that "democratic" governments need to walk to ensure their subsistence, and it's on us to voice how far we're willing to sacrifice some of the "freedoms" we're used to.
Needless to say, it's going to be a bumpy ride until we figure this out.
Sorry, National Security as an excuse is still utterly broken from its abuse in the early 2000s. We aren't buying this "bomb the village in order to save it" bullshit doublethink.
It's not an excuse. It would be ignorant to not acknowledge the existence of information warfare, and its very real effects. The irony is that the tools the US built and gave away for the world to use are being used against it, and will likely cause its downfall. Do you think the current sociopolitical climate is unrelated? The Cambridge Analytica leak confirmed that small independent agencies can effectively disrupt democratic processes and topple governments. What do you think state actors can do?
FWIW, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm speaking as a neutral observer. I don't like the idea of giving more control to governments either. But it's clear that something has to be done to defend countries from this type of attack. Traditional military might can't defend you from an invisible enemy.
Needless to say, it's going to be a bumpy ride until we figure this out.