Since this is getting modded up, I should point out the flaws:
The move by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was mostly in order to control *validation* not information source. Those with the wealth, infrastructure and motivation to control opinion aren't blind to disinformation, they are masters of it. By channeling sourcing to a small subset of the internet and then giving these sanctioned-sources the official blessing from controlled interests they hope to be able to regulate *social trust*. This is a key point in my original comment. As long as they control the data and the majority of the distribution they cannot be challenged, no matter how blatantly they lie or misrepresent the evidence.
Nobody was completely blind to media manipulation even before it became the modern social-psychology wonderland for special-interest we have today. Mr Smith Goes to Washington hit theaters in 1939. That was fear of newspaper control and monopolization by the politico-bosses (the biggest problem during the Truman era) and it was before the word psychology was a part of household vocabulary.
Hacker groups run into the following problems: IPv6 is being pushed: while it has good arguments and valid, necessary reasoning behind it; IPv6 also allows personal identification and sourcing tied to identity. ISP/Tellco routing: (redirection of the traffic and packet tagging). Data patterning (neural networks) are great at sorting out even tiny flaws in massive volumes of information, so unless the smoke screen is nearly flawless it can be wiped away with ease. Hacking groups do not have the same data, which means their trends are off, which means that they leave a footprint in high volumes of data. They are also unable to verify, prove, or even detect much of what they would need to combat.
Those are all technical reasons why it wouldn't work, or at the very least work well.
Next there is the philosophical reason: technology isn't bad, it is merely a tool. The tool can be used for great public good, or great public harm. Imagine a world where sophistry and lying (on mass for manipulation) are no longer possible. That's the promise of NNs used properly. Unfortunately it depends on open data for oversight and validation. Attempting to stop the tech is not only technically unlikely to work, it's philosophically killing the golden goose for fear of the golden egg's value. It's just another form of neo-conservatism that is horribly short-sighted.
Finally, not all countries are created equal. Canvasing one country may be possible due to civil liberty and restrictions on government, canvasing them all is just not socially possible. The internet is global, the politics cover regional, national and international and all of civil, criminal and regulatory law. There just isn't any way for judicial systems to keep up, even if they were effectively educated enough to make proper judgements (which they assuredly are not).
