> With that attitude we would not have voting, human rights (for what they're worth these days), unions, a prohibition on slavery and tons of other things we take for granted every day.

None of these things were rolling back a technology. History shows that technology is a ratchet, the only way to get rid of a technology is social collapse or surplanting the technology with something even more useful or at the very least approximately as useful but safer.

Once a technology has proliferated, it's a fiat accompli. You can regulate the technology but turning the clock back isn't going to happen.

We have plenty of examples of regulated technology.

And usually the general public does not have a direct stake in the outcome (ok, maybe broadcast spectrum regulation should be mentioned there), but this time they do and given what's at stake it may well be worth trying to define what a good set of possible outcomes would be and how to get there.

As I mentioned above and which TFA is all about, the press for instance could be held to a standard that they have shown they can easily meet in the past.