The internet as a place of representation for ethics and morality is already questionable in and of itself or leads away from reality, in my view. I consider it difficult or even impossible to try to make agreement on questions of morality and ethics a convention on the net. People fight each other on virtual ground and most of those who have not shifted their main lifestyle to the net world might not care.

But if already in the real, non-representative world no agreement can be reached on what is ethically and morally right or wrong, then you will certainly not be able to do it in the digital world, because here the lack of relationships has multiplied many times over.

Take the two of us, for example. We have no relationship to each other, neither of a business nor of a private nature. We meet in a publicly accessible space. Neither obligation nor friendship binds us; neither you nor I can demand attention or complain effectively if given too much or too little. It would have no particular effect on my emotional or financial or other life.

For my part, I wouldn't have it any other way. Because if I wanted the conflict about what is moral or immoral to extend to the digital space, then I would at the same time enter into a very large dependency with this space, for example, by limiting my primary or even only financial possibilities, my only social encounters to this internet (blockchains, "social networks" etc.).

If someone in my family/friends falls ill or dies or is born, then it is not my "social media contacts" who are a support to me in this, just as the other way round. They are too far away, I don't work with them, I don't even know their real name, etc. In such an anonymous environment, it's impossible for them to be a support to me. In this context, one cannot speak of real friendship at all. At the most, one can speak of business relationships.

I speak out quite clearly against such a life, against a dominant representation of my existence as an internet person.

It seems to me that you are speaking out in favour of it because, as it looks to me, you seem to regard your earning potential here as primary and express your social needs frequently.

Your expressive resistance to the powers that be doesn't seem to take into account that in the digital, relationship-detached world, you are stuck in an endless loop of debate and gossip that knows no bedtimes and no end. In what quality and intensity can you actually discuss in your physical environment the topics that you address on the blockchain? For my part, I think that such never-ending digital talk is definitely wanted and welcomed by the ruling powers.
The more keyboard time the better.

Will people find spaces for a non digital life, or, as little as possible?