> Restraining orders are a thing for a reason.
Sure, but for the purposes of this conversation, saying "for a reason" regarding a function which is presently delegated to the state is fraught with all sorts of future-proofing concerns.
It seems to me that, as a baseline, we have to agree to observe the apparent trend of the internet to supplant the state - to resist its censorship and influence almost entirely - as an indicator that our long-term thinking needs to put those relatively few state functions which are essential to a peaceful society (such as restraining orders) in the purview of the internet... somehow. Maybe that will prove to be unnecessary, but in the case that the state fades, we'll be happy we had the foresight.
Internet traffic is barely (and arguably, already not) under human control as it is. And in another century, it will almost certainly be impossible to tell the machines 'enhance your calm or else'. Or else what?
I agree wholeheartedly about your qualities of good neighbor roles. But I don't think they extrapolate the way you think they do.
Consider this: at every moment, your house - your literal dwelling - is bombarded with high-level, semantic radio traffic, from way down where the messages bounce off the ionosphere all the way up to 10GHz and beyond. But this doesn't bother you. You ignore what you don't need! You draw boundaries and personally work on strengthening them - with the help of your friends and neighbors.
The internet needs help taking this shape at the application layer (and really, at all layers). And that part is up to us. We can't just throw our hands up and say "<legacy state function> exists for some reason, doesn't it?"