Firstly, let me say that in this 'Internet', you are an intruder: It is you who penetrates as system and tries to impose laws upon it. Even at the risk of being pinned down on listening to my instinctive human behaviour, I say this.
Before I start, I'd also say a few words regarding to your frequent references on Mao. I'd never consider you a Maoist; the word that comes to mind is rather 'fascist' - I know, a cliche, but so is your historically inherited red-baiting.
Anyway, before I lose all coherence, I'll come to my argument.
Your perhaps most fundamental misconception is that the components of the real world (hierarchy, responsibility,etc.) are somehow good or desirable and pertaining to the real world, you are correct (in a certain context). They are indeed useful for building an orderly society. But they are for from good for the individual. Without the desire to sound anarchist, these are tools for making us into instruments of power, obedient slaves even, if one wants to get polemic. Aside from the obvious benefits of such a system (security), it does not make us individually happy. Things like the aformentioned ones are a mere necessity of reality where we are subject to the laws of nature which we can not bend and there have to adapt to. One needs to subjugate himself to authority so that a power can be formed that is able to defend against invaders. One must behave in an orderly fashion so that a stable society can be formed. But these things are still only a necessity, not an end desirable in itself.
To make a small jump, the second time you mentioned hierarchy ("contempt for meritocratic hierarchy"), you added to word "meritocratic" as to suggest how good (and meritocratic) hierarchy in our world is. This statement, in and on itself, is entirely laughable. Hierarchy has never been meritocratic and even if that should be the case through some hypothetical circumstances, power will quickly corrupt those in charge. You are probably not well accustomed with how power is gotten but let me tell you that it is not through openess and altruism. Only those who are the most unscrupulous and determined and favoured will get power and should that not be, power will quickly corrupt them. After all, that is what anonymity is about to some degree - power. With the abrogation of responsibility and identity humans get more corrupt (through not indefinitely, partly due to the limitations of actions on the internet and partly due to 'humanity'). However, only as far as your definition of 'corrupt' goes. As soon as people realise their anonymity and the possibilities that come with it, they will shed social customs that have been a burdem to them and are no longer forced to lie or 'roleplay', if I might use that term, out of courtesy or to obey some unwritten law. Which brings me to my next point, your unilateral and self-righteous judgement of content. Your claims of not being a 'digital Maoist' become vain as you mark everything of which you do not approve as worthless - naming (actually implying) your social customs, which, being necessary in the real world but unnecessary in the virtual one, yet there for establishing power there, as being normative - the same social customs the bondage of which people try to escape from by going into the internet. What you do not understand or do not want to understand is that people - people who 'make up' the internet - do not want your restrictions. They want to be free. For them you are nothing but an external invader, a shadow from the real world following them, trying to destroy their place of escape. I believe - to go into a more optimistic tone - that the best 'course of action', if one can speak of that, is to do nothing. Things will work out, without any imposed regulation or the the self-righteous actions if vigilantes, trying to get hold of power. You may contact me under the email adress