It just hit me like a ton of bricks, the internet itself is a moral standard.

Think of it this way, each website has their own code of conduct and terms/use provisions. In essence, it is almost like a a religion setting out their commandments and tenets. People follow the rules in fear of divine retribution through God/Gods or in this case Mod/Mods/Admins of websites and forum.

However, what if people start testing the limits of the rules? What if there is no divine retribution or plagues set against you?

At first you will only have a few outliers, a few people that are placed in the anti-social category or the "strange" kids table among the population, who are shunned. Then, as time goes by, the rules grow older and the rule adherents start to be more lax. Two decades ago, if asked, whether killing an innocent person in order to stop terrorism was right? Most people would say no as they'd view it as overkill and immoral in the traditional sense. However, as a society we have moved beyond those rules over time, testing the limits until today, when most people agree there are times that the "good of the many must outweigh the good of the few or one".

Similarly, I have a theory that websites and forums are also undergoing similar process of evolution and devolution in their rules and limits. As they age, the original members and new adherents grow lax, then they test the system. The phenomenon of internet trolls are a reflection of this testing of weaknesses in the guise of LOLs. As their behavior becomes justified and mundane, others attempt to try more extreme ways of testing until you reach the point where the rules can no longer be used to hold users to a standard.

Personally, I don't believe in moral standards, because I believe that in either religious or technological example of moral standards, the divine or administrative power must be in direct control at all times enforcing their rules. Without eternal vigilance by either, moral standards are merely untested assumptions.

Here's an interesting idea to consider about the nature of perfection in reality: Judeo-Christians would tend to hold to the value that things are done for a purpose due to an underlying principle of perfection (God or God's plan). However, if the internet and its "God/Gods" can be used as examples, what if the underlying perfection doesn't exist. Instead, you have the model scenario that everything "should" be perfect if all things were equal.

While site creators have a dream and master plan for themselves and their creations, their users have different one and see the creation in a different light than the creator. In the end, due to lack of shared perception between the creator and user/creation, the end result is imperfection.

Just some musings over the nature of the internet with a bit of theological idea over "perfection" and "imperfection".