There can be little question, today, that the printing press has made it possible for ideas to be exchanged over space and time in a way that could never have been achieved before. That the writing down of ideas has fostered greater feelings of community, in the modern world, than it has hostility.
And yet that took almost a thousand YEARS!
The Internet, as originally devised, has existed for barely more than 30. In it's modern form, as a transport mechanism for Hypertext (eg: the web) with public high-speed access, it has existed for less than 7.
Give the Internet another 993 years, and if you still see so much global hatred, you have a point. However, I'm willing to bet that in less than 100 years (one TENTH the time the Printing Press took to complete its revolution) emnity of the kind you have been seeing will belong to the isolated few, who will be pittied by the remainder, not feared.
THIS is the greatest mistake today's generation is making. In the 60's, people risked literally everything for their beliefs. It wasn't just a time of strange substances or stranger politics, it was a time when "weirdos" would storm military bases and paint their aircraft & tanks in bright colours.
You won't see that in today's youth, or even the "middle-aged" geeks, like myself. We're too chicken-shit to stand up and DEMAND peace, even though we're bright enough to realise that we could, and that we'd probably achieve it, too.
(The Vietnam War didn't end because America had "won" - it got the crap beaten out of it. It ended because the demands for it to stop got too loud. "We the people" only works, if the people decide they have something worth saying, and make damn sure it gets heard.)
In this sense, the "hacktivists" have the right motives, although generally poor ideas on turning that motive into reality. The Internet WILL become a force for good and peace. Eventually. That is inevitable. The question is "now, or later". If we want "now", then we must stand up and demand "now".
What does this mean? This means turning up the volume of peace, until hatred simply gets drowned out. Hatred can't respond, by turning up its own volume, because it's a destructive force, not a creative one.
Ok, so how could people go about it? Well, if we follow 60's logic, we might start by infiltration. Find on-line groups that foster hatred and mistruct, and divide them against themselves. A house divided cannot stand.
Another option, for those employed by companies running the larger backbones, is to drop the more blatant spam. Hey, who's going to complain? Spammers generally use fake addresses, and spamming is illegal in several States & in the EU. The recipients sure as hell won't!
It's little things like this that can make it impossible for hatred to thrive. You simply take away much of the fuel, and it'll starve itself.
The reason the 60's "revolution" failed was because it became too occupied in that it was smoking, and not occupied enough on how it was living. The 60's starved -itself- to oblivion, ushering in the hollow 70's and the counter-revolutionary 80's. When your imagination kills the good it could have done, the consequences can easily be visited unto the 3rd generation. We've seen it. It's not because of anything God (or what we understand as God) might decide, it's because that's the price others pay for our consequences.
We can do better. If we want. If we want world peace, we can achieve it within our lifetimes. But we've got to want it bad enough to sacrifice the alternative. The previous generations could take a thousand years of struggle - inner and outer - costing tens of millions of lives - just to want peace bad enough to achieve it.
But all it would have taken was that first bunch deciding that peace was worth having.