Re: Question?
"For example, expect more places to start adding captchas, whether the typical kind or more browser and device fingerprinting, in order to make it harder for bots to send data."
As an admin, that's not how it works. What I expect to see is similar to Usenet and Email filtering, where address blocks that permit such abuse are not just filtered, but are actively dropped on the floor. Note that this is not CONTENT based filtering, this is filtering based on sites allowing meaningless noise.
Yes, this can cause some collateral damage, particularly with anonymizing services ... but as soon as anonymous services start doing their own noise filtering, legit traffic will be allowed to pass again. "What is legit in this context?", you might ask. Simple ... humans having a conversation is legit. Noise drowning out that human conversation not so much. Yes, some humans come close to drowning out legit conversation all by themselves, no bots needed. These should be treated as special cases, similar to Usenet's "substantially the same" rules for spam filtering.
It's not freedom of speech when it drowns out all other conversation.
Note that this will all happen at the transit level (and in fact already does, in some cases), ordinary users will never know the difference.
Also note that this is NOT about Facebook, Twitter, or even ElReg policing their own. Their own internal networks are their own issue, and that's a whole 'nuther kettle of worms. What I am talking about is the Internet (and the people who run it) protecting itself from abuse. There is a reason the phrase 'Tragedy of the Commons" exists ... some of us have been working towards seeing that it does not happen in this medium, despite the best efforts of clueless Marketing and bad Management, for several decades.
There is no Cabal.